Researchers from Tel Aviv University offer an explanation for the unique anatomy of Neanderthal man * The new study was recently published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Researchers from Tel Aviv University offer a new and surprising explanation for the unique anatomy of the thorax of Neanderthal man. The new study was conducted by doctoral student Miki Ben-Dor, Prof. Ran Barkai and Prof. Avi Gofar from the Department of Archeology at Tel Aviv University. The results of the study were recently published in the prestigious American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
The Neanderthal man is a type of man that was common in Europe and the Middle East, including in the Land of Israel. The last Neanderthals became extinct about 30-40 thousand years ago.
"The Neanderthal man was anatomically different from the modern man, Homo sapiens," explains doctoral student Miki Ben-Dor. "Among other things, they have a chest different from ours, which expands in the lower part like a bell. Until now, the accepted theories were that the Neanderthals had a large chest because they were heavier than us and had to hunt large animals in the European cold of the Ice Age, and therefore needed a higher lung capacity. But the wide part of the rib cage is not at all in the lung area, but in the liver area."
According to the new explanation offered by the researchers, the key to understanding the anatomy of the Neanderthals lies in their diet.
"Since we are descended from monkeys, who ate mainly a plant-based diet, we humans are not able to digest an unlimited amount of protein," says Ben-Dor. Homo sapiens are able to get about a third of the calories they need per day from protein, while the rest of the calories come from other sources, mainly from fat and plant foods. Neanderthals, due to their body dimensions and living in a cold climate, required a higher calorie supply than that of modern humans, and therefore the limitation of protein digestion was a very problematic constraint for them."
According to the new explanation offered by the researchers, the Neanderthal man's liver was significantly larger than ours, Homo sapiens, to allow increased processing of protein for energy, a hypothesis that could explain the special shape of his chest.
"The Neanderthals lived in Europe during ice ages in the Pleistocene era," says Prof. Ran Barkai. "At that time ice covered the earth for long periods. It was difficult to impossible for Neanderthals to obtain plant food, so they were very dependent on animal food, mainly from large animals, with an emphasis on mammoths. But the amount of fat was still limited, while large amounts of meat were available to the Neanderthals. We claim that the adaptation of the Neanderthal to an environment where the amount of protein was high was intended to allow a high consumption of protein from meat so that the liver, kidneys and bladder grew, and with them the chest in its lower part. In fact, we claim that it is an adaptation, an anatomical adaptation created as a result of environmental pressure of a lack of fat and carbohydrates, and a relatively high availability of protein."
"There is a connection here of several existing and well-known bodies of information on diet, environment, climate and anatomy, a connection that yielded a new explanation", explains Prof. Avi Gofer. "You have to remember that the Neanderthals have a common ancestor with us, which probably existed in Africa. There the diet was varied. In cold prehistoric Europe the situation was very different. Then, in a process of natural selection, individuals born with a better physiological ability to digest meat, i.e. individuals with an enlarged liver, had an evolutionary advantage. And they are the ones who formed the basis of the Neanderthal dynasty."
It was a successful evolutionary solution. Until they became extinct about 30-40 thousand years ago, the Neanderthals flourished between 200 and 300 thousand years. Although their extinction is not the main topic of the article, the researchers suggest that there is a connection between the Neanderthal extinction and the extinction of the large animals, which began about 50 thousand years ago.
"We believe that the anatomical adaptation we presented, an adaptation that was suitable for an environment with a high availability of protein and fat from large animals, became insufficient with the disappearance of the large animals," says Prof. Barkai. "So even the Neanderthal's relatively large liver, which was adapted to handle a large amount of protein, was unable to provide him with the level of energy needed to survive."
535 תגובות
rival
I thought so too.
Miracles,
I don't know if he is a troll, in my opinion he truly believes in the nonsense he writes here.
rival
Don't you see that "AP" is a troll?
I suggest not to refer to it.
Correction to the link:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בעיית_מונטי_הול
"Reason cannot be wrong!"
More nonsense from AP's seminary (following on from "God is eternity" and other nonsense) there are a thousand and one examples and riddles that show that many times reality is completely different from intuition or from what logic tells us.
Here is just one example:
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/בעיית_מונטי_הול
No':
Logic cannot be wrong!
Arguing about this is impossible because it relies on logic.
What is the difference between science and fairy tales? A: Logic.
(The stories of Baron Karl Friedrich Hieronymus von Munchausen will make this distinction very clear to you)
What happens to science that no longer relies on reason? It becomes a science that relies on lies and distortions of language and arbitrariness.
The absurdity comes when an experiment comes that proves that an indecomposable system must exist, then one shouts that if he didn't say that it is an indecomposable system, then it doesn't exist.
The liar, who is based on his lies, imposes a harsh censorship on his own thought.
If the authors of the minimal genome study were to claim that it does not prove that inextricable complexity exists, then they had a serious problem with themselves and the purpose of their research.
A rainbow in nature does not have a complex or non-complex, because it is not complex, it is not made up of parts. The term "complex" does not apply to it. Therefore claims about its complexity are meaningless.
But censorship of logic allows any claim to be made.
Son, the most experiments can show is that something is happening that is currently unexplained, but never show that there is nothing.
What you see as science today is censored science. Science that censors itself.
The theory of evolution is not science, because a lie is not science.
Reverse engineering is the study of the planned.
Reverse engineering is a deductive science, it investigates through logic and facts how parts make a whole.
The study of evolution is a deductive study. From a whole complex one learns about the roles of its components and then claims that they were created by themselves and before its design, that is, they are lying.
A scientific method that lies to itself, that censors itself, is not a method and is not science.
A method that is not true to its principles is not a method. The science of evolution is not a science but a colorful pile of lies that swallows huge budgets.
-
My response is awaiting confirmation.
A- The intelligent planning is definitely scientific since it relies on a scientific principle. I asked you a simple question that will show you why: suppose someone tomorrow designs a robot that is almost identical to a person externally. Do you think such a robot is proof of design or a natural process? As for the dolphin - it's a fact that he's doing great. In fact, dolphins are considered excellent swimmers and divers and at a much higher level than most fish. Some species of whales are even considered the best of the deep. So they are actually well designed. And in general, have you ever managed to design a dolphin? If you think nature made a dolphin so easily, why are you as an intelligent designer unable to make even a dolphin's tail?
Rival, a simple possibility is that the human population was too small throughout the aforementioned time to leave fossils, and therefore, only recently when its population increased do we begin to see fossils in those layers. The talisman fish, for example, did not leave a single fossil for approximately 70 million years. Certain fish did not leave a single fossil for about a quarter of a billion years and so on. The fact that there are no fossils does not mean that those species did not exist.
AP- Good examples. In fact, it's hard for me to think of a system that isn't a discharge. You can also add the translation mechanism to your list: ribosomes (which themselves consist of many subunits), 20 proteins aminoacyl transferase rna synthetase, 20 tRNA and more. Or the replication mechanism: polymerases, primases, ssb proteins that prevent re-formation of hydrogen bonds, helicases and more. In fact, every protein is undegradable. Globin for example, apart from the polypeptide skeleton that hides a hydrophobic pocket, requires a "hem" molecule, which itself requires some 7 proteins for synthesis. And so on and so forth regarding thousands of proteins and systems.
Nissim, A spoke about the remains of legs. I'm sure he was talking about the small bones present in every dolphin today. Ask him yourself. Either way - I brought a study that showed that those bones (legs or pelvis) are actually functional. More than that, also regarding the femurs - where did you get them from, aren't they the remains of a degenerated fin? (hint - even the link you linked to shows evidence of this).
A.P.
I just read some of your comments from other discussions. At least you are consistent and don't claim that only biologicals talk nonsense. Physicists too. (Nonsense like out of nowhere. Randomness of the quanta.)
You don't understand one simple thing. Science is not based on logic, it is based on experiments (yes, it is considered to explore with the senses). A person cannot rely only on logic because he may mistake logic for mistaken intuition. The Greeks tried to base science on philosophy. And the results were poor, in science based on experiment if a finding contradicts our logic we understand that it was our logic that was wrong. That's why all your philosophizing of "there is nothing", subject before object, etc... are simply irrelevant.
Miracles
The timing is also interesting for an organization of Orthodox rabbis
Publish a call for a change in attitude towards the gay community.
The Catholics are not more advanced as you said. Those who are more centralized so every time there is a progressive pope then it looks like this. In terms of religion, the rabbis who accepted the science were before the church changed its mind. What happened mainly was the wave of converts who discovered that it is much easier to laugh and dismiss science. Than to explain why people like you are wrong and science doesn't slap God. This is how the impression is created that all the rabbis do not accept the science. Of course there are some.
A.P.
A) You talk a lot of nonsense
b) The requirement is an example of a living cell that is not sensitive to light, not an example of a place where there are cells that are not exposed to light. Do you understand the difference between the two?
A.P.
Keshet is also a system of inextricable complexity. I mean the bow in the context of her sons, not the sign God gave Noah.
Still, there are rainbows in nature. How do you explain that?
A.P.
Please - show me where it says in the link you gave that DNA cannot be broken down.
Bio!
You will find an example of a non-dischargeable system that is proven beyond all doubt here:
The system is called Minimal Genome: click on the name.
If the link doesn't work, look for synthetic bug.
A note about a non-downloadable system:
1. Consists of genes and not mutations. For example, a non-degradable system that consists of 3 genes, the chance of its formation: for a protein with a length of 200 amino acids, a chance of 22 to the power of 200, and for three genes, a chance of 22 to the power of 600.
2. All information dependent on its components constitutes an inextricable system. Example "a sentence that consists of words".
In nature - the DNA is the most well-known and widespread non-decomposed system. (Although small parts of the DNA are decompressed)
Each organ is an inseparable system, for example a liver. Likewise organ systems, coordination and control.
The forms of the organs and the whole creature are produced through inextricable gene systems.
Every control system is an inextricable system.
The immune system consisting of many subsystems is another example.
The creation of glucose using chlorophyll is an inexhaustible enzymatic system.
In terms of laboratory proof:
Chemical reactions involving multiple enzymes that cannot occur in the absence of one of them, for example the Krebs cycle from Wikipedia:
"Below is a breakdown of the stages of the Krebs cycle:
Oxaloacetate combines with acetyl coenzyme A and forms citrate, a six-carbon molecule. This step occurs with the help of the enzyme citrate synthase. This step is one-way.
Citrate undergoes an isomeric change and becomes isocitrate. This step occurs with the help of the enzyme aconitase.
Isocitrate loses carbon dioxide and becomes alpha-ketoglutarate (α-Ketoglutarate), a five-carbon molecule. This step occurs with the help of the enzyme isocitrate dehydrogenase.
Alpha-ketoglutarate loses carbon dioxide, connects to coenzyme A and forms succinyl (Succinyl) coenzyme A. This step occurs with the help of the enzyme α-Ketoglutarate dehydrogenase. Now there are 4 carbons left, so it can be seen that two carbon atoms enter the circle as acetyl units and two carbon atoms leave it in the form of carbon dioxide.
Succinyl coenzyme A loses coenzyme A and becomes succinate. This step occurs with the help of the succinyl coA synthase enzyme in the process that creates the GTP molecule.
Succinate becomes Fumarate. This step occurs with the help of the enzyme succinate dehydrogenase.
Fumarate becomes Malate. This step occurs with the help of the fumarase enzyme.
Cement turns into oxaloacetate. This step occurs with the help of the enzyme malate dehydrogenase"
3. You can find cells that are not sensitive to light in the depths of the sea.
Bio
Why design a marine creature like a dolphin that cannot breathe in water?
Not only are there no human fossils. There are actually dinosaurs of all sizes. Not only are there no human fossils, there is no other sign either. No stone tools from the period, no signs of human fire in the caves, no art, nothing.
Suddenly there is no problem of a low chance that only humans will not become fossils for millions of years but thousands of different kinds of animals from insects to giant reptiles will.
bio,
This is a bad answer, if humans lived for such a long period of 400 million years why are all the fossils we have found so far only from the last 5 million years? Where are all the human fossils from 20 million years ago? 50 million years? 70 million years? Are they all gone? Did they disappear into the ground? Only humans from the last 5 million years remain and all the rest, the older ones, have disappeared?
Bio
You killed me?????
So this is by far the most flexible "scientific" theory there is.
Not only does she predict nothing. She doesn't say anything either. There is only God, evolution is a mistake.
Bio
We talked about the thigh bones of a whale, and you brought a source about the hip bones, a source that strengthens my position and not yours.
We talked about unloading complexity, but you didn't give a single proven example of it.
We talked about the probability of a certain process. I gave completely wrong data, and when I corrected you, you gave the same wrong data again.
I asked you two questions - and you are unable to answer them either.
May I ask why you are not answering?
Yariv, the reason for this is simple - even if a person existed about 400 million years ago, the chance of finding such a fossil is very low. This is because only a minority of the species get to leave their mark in fossils (according to evolutionists, about 99% of the species that have ever existed have not been preserved in fossils). So we should say at all thanks that there are humans.
A- There are those who support intentional development and there are those who do not. I'm one of those who don't. Intelligent planning is open to both.
Miracles, this is an interesting example that I have already read about. In such a case, and in the absurd assumptions (for the benefit of evolution) that I gave here, the numbers that I gave can indeed exist. But as I said - I'm also talking about systems that evolved in large organisms such as reptiles and mammals and not bacteria. More than that, according to what we saw earlier, even the simplest eye consists of about 200 different parts. So in such a case even a bacterium cannot develop such a system.
Bio
An example of a living cell that is not sensitive to light please.. I'm waiting….
Bio
What kind of evasive answer is this? There are about 40 types of eyes, which is a clear sign of a planning circular (the sign is "one role one part"). But - in all of them, the organ of vision is ultimately built of single cells, so you cannot dismiss the argument that vision evolved in single cells.
Now, unlike two other people I know - I checked and found:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/bacteria-actually-tiny-eyeball
Therefore - you have no way to disqualify my numbers, and we have shown, without a doubt, that yours ....mmmmmmmm .... Incorrect.
Now - when will you answer my two questions?
Bio
Why don't you answer the question what exactly do you call intelligent planning? Does this mean all at the same time or a planned development?
Miracles,
I remember coming across an example of a minimal eye consisting of one simple molecule containing a few single atoms, you can probably find that example on the site you linked to here a while ago.
bio,
Let's say I don't currently have a definition to give you, nor do I accept the definition you gave, zero one in your favor, satisfied? 🙂
Now please explain why we don't have a single human fossil from 65 million years ago, or a mammal fossil from 400 million years ago. A fossil, no murals and no footprints. Do you have a reasonable explanation for this? I would really love to hear from you an explanation for this mystery.
Rival, for the sixth time: why don't you define what a fossil is that is out of place? Asking me for a 400 million year old mammal is not a definition. It seems to me that you understand very well where I'm going and therefore you firmly oppose providing a definition. So until you provide a definition for a misplaced fossil I can't give you one. I don't understand what your insistence is. The definition I gave earlier (from a fossil appearing before its presumed ancestors) is remarkably consistent with a 400 million year old mammal (since at that time not even reptiles had appeared). So again, do you agree with the definition? Yes or No?
Miracles, a system that distinguishes between light and darkness is not a simple system. Even an intelligent designer who tries to create such a system will need at least a few parts. The number you gave may correspond to bacteria but not to large animals such as mammals or reptiles. That changes the picture completely.
Bio
I will be happy if you answer my two simple questions.
1) I am asking for one proven example of an "inextricable biological system"
2) Why not accept evolution as long as scientists have not proven that it is impossible?
Bio
Regarding the eye, this is simply not true. There are very simple substances that are sensitive to light.
Bio
You throw irrelevant numbers, and draw wrong conclusions from them.
There are about 14^10 bacteria in each person. That means about 24^10 bacteria only in humans!!
A generation of bacteria is minutes, not a year.
We will take your hundred mutations, and accept that one day we will get what you wanted!
Looks a little different now, doesn't it?
bio,
"Rival, for the fifth time - are you willing to define what a fossil is that is out of place before I look for one for you? What exactly are you afraid of?'
And for the fifth time you too - why can't you bring here even one example of a human fossil from 65 million years ago, or of a 400 million year old mammal? Do you have a reasonable explanation why we don't have such fossils?
18^10=16^10
A- It is a scientific theory because it is based on scientific tools. Here's a simple question that will show you how: Suppose that tomorrow some scientist develops a sophisticated robot that looks very similar to a person externally. So much so that it will be difficult for you to understand if it is a robot or a living person. Would you argue that this robot is not proof of design? Will you claim that the above conclusion is not scientific?
Regarding evolution - if it does not explain its main claim (the development of new families), then its scientific weight is also in doubt.
And regarding the numbers: if we are talking about a relatively large population of about a billion individuals (which make up a certain family), and a generation = a year, then in a year we will have about 100 billion mutations (100 mutations per individual). And to reach about 27^10 mutations will require about 18^10 years. which is about a hundred million times the estimated age of the universe. And all this for just one system, and a relatively simple one at that.
Rival, for the fifth time - are you willing to define what a fossil is that is out of place before I look for one for you? What exactly are you afraid of?
Miracles, as I showed at the beginning of the discussion - even the simplest eye contains close to 200 different proteins (which is not even an eye but a mechanism for distinguishing between light and dark). And this is an example that Prof. Dawkins himself brought as minimal visible evidence. So even in the minimal complexity there is an inextricable system.
Bio
Do you have a proven example of what you describe? That is - has science proven that there is a complex biological mechanism that cannot be broken down?
A.
The Pope (not the current one) accepted both the big bang and evolution. In general, Catholic Christianity is relatively progressive. They too, like the rabbis you mentioned, understand that in the end this is a business, and it is forbidden to lose customers today.
bio,
I already told you, a human fossil from 65 million years ago or a mammal fossil from 400 million years ago would be a very difficult problem for evolution. Do you have an example of such a fossil, and if not, what is the reason?
Bio
If it is permissible to ask - as long as science has not shown that evolution is not possible, why not accept it?
A\
And so the disintegration of religion began.
And the religion that was a barrier against the abomination, was for the abomination.
And the severe warning against the attempt to turn the creation on its face was made into a tool by its distorted pretender believers, enslaved to their distorted abominations. A tool to mock and slander the tattoo of faith to destruction.
And as long as the severe warning formed a foundation of the foundations of the faith, it was like a hot skewer in their sinful soul, like a sword turning in their heart.
And now they will rewrite the religion and turn it upside down, their desire for destruction will be satisfied, and the religion will never be known to have existed.
And the truth will express itself without saying and the severe warning will become a fact.
And the person will again ask where is he? And the truth will answer - the facts speak for themselves.
Bio
I feel like I'm repeating myself. To say that God runs the world through the laws of nature does not really mean not to believe in God. I believe that everything that happens in her is from God. Even when you don't see a change in the law of nature.
Bio
Evolution is the development of species. If I understood you correctly then you also get it but only for small changes. Now regarding the general theory. In science, until an alternative theory is presented, the existing theory continues to be used. You might say hey I have an alternative theory. But it's not a scientific theory (you still didn't answer me about what I asked about the theory) because according to that we stop teaching relativity because it doesn't explain dark energy and we simply say that there is a higher power. It is impossible to prove that it is not true, but you have to look for the theory that will explain it without using a higher power. There are things (much less than you claim) that need to be further investigated. New theories may be developed in addition to natural selection. But as in any field of science, there may always be unclosed corners. Or new questions will emerge. In any case, science must start from the point of view that nature acted according to laws.
You are welcome to calculate what is the chance of a lair of one in 27^10 if you have 27^10 attempts. The answer is below
post Scriptum.
You were wrong that there are no applications for evolution, but that's in a different response.
Miracles
Just shortly after I told you that the religions were going to change their attitude about the gay community. I read that the Pope published a document to change the position towards the community.
The document may not yet seem innovative enough. But he associates the gay community with divorcees. That's what he says. I didn't say it's allowed, but it's not that bad either. And that's a start. A change is also beginning in Judaism, and it is happening mainly because there is a trend of people coming out of the closet who do not leave the religion. In doing so, they force the rabbis to find a solution to the problem. And trust them when you are not sure, they will find a solution.
A- I base my claims on science and not on faith. So from a scientific point of view, as long as there is no proof that evolution is possible, why accept it? I will also ask you - what will make you abandon the theory of evolution? Do you agree with scientists like Dawkins who claim that one fossil is enough to disprove the theory, or do you think it's a theory that you will continue to believe no matter what?
In addition, according to the Bible you must know that God exists (it is written explicitly "and you knew today and returned to your heart"). So how do you claim this is faith?
By the way, evolution has nothing to do with drug development. So that you know how to differentiate between science like genetics or computers and a theory like evolution.
Bio
So far you haven't answered what I asked.
Why do you see the creation of animals in the natural way as contrary to faith, but that the weather operates according to the laws of nature does not seem to you to contradict providence.
By design you mean that everything was created together or in a deliberate development.
You manage to understand why in order to find the laws of nature, science must assume that everything has a natural explanation. Even if the scientist believes in God?
In an attempt to revive the above discussion, if only three parts are required for the development of a system, and the chances of each of them are one in a billion for that matter (in my opinion, much less, but let's say), then approximately 27^10 attempts are required to develop even one new system. Which means that the estimated age of the universe (approximately 14 billion years) is nothing.
If I remember correctly, it is forbidden to benefit from foreign work. So I don't know how he uses the computer. On the other hand, why do I assume he is Jewish? Theologically it is closer to Catholicism.
rival
God forbid to conduct experiments.
Conducting an experiment is an examination of nature with the help of the senses. Paganism, idolatry.
Long live the Middle Ages forever
And it is possible to think that the definition "God is eternity" is the height of intelligence, a definition that does not have an iota of logic, maybe only for you.
AP,
Not that I'm interested in continuing the conversation with you, but just for the record. Before you attack people and call them stupid so that you learn to listen, and more than that - to understand what is being said to you.
I did not say that 0 = 1. If you are going for such an analogy, then I said that 0 may in certain cases become 1. And this is not because "I feel like it" but because this is what senior physicists claim following many studies and experiments. Are you saying they are wrong? Please do your own research and post your new findings.
We barely talked for half a minute and already you announce "break the tools and don't play", then you talk about a moron, funny.
With perfect timing, a study on a genetic barrier, which is actually related to the immune system, was published on the website. A genetic change that causes rejection of the fetus in the woman.
rival
Can't you see you're talking to a troll? Do you think anyone could be that stupid and a liar?
Life
He knocked my chin on the table, not a fist :). And yes, I guess he got his 🙂
A.P.
In anticipation of the approaching flood, I gave Noah an explicit instruction not to put you in the ark
I really feel sorry for you.
AP,
As for the last question, the answer is you.
AP,
Are you writing here after Shabbat??
I really wonder about you... Why don't you keep Shabbat?
OK
To the opponent:
""There is nothing from nothing" - I think that modern physics and quantum theory actually contradict the intuitive assumption"
Do you think that "1≠0" is an intuitive assumption?
Do you think that "1=0" is the height of logic?
Accepting "1=0" is accepting a logical contradiction. There is no sleep.
I don't accept contradictions because I feel like it, but because nothing is gone.
You accept that nothingness is not and you also accept that nothingness is. You accept contradictions and expect a rational logical discussion..
A discussion based on contradictions is impossible. You have shown here that discussion with you is impossible!
In your opinion, people are right only because they think they are right, and therefore their every argument is based on "I feel like it".
Claims are accepted or rejected not because "I feel like it". "I feel like it" is your way.
Existence exists and nothingness is gone. Existence speaks for itself. Claims are accepted or rejected because of the truth or lie behind them.
God is eternal. And if you get bored and ask what it has to do with it, then a God who is not eternal does not exist.
"I feel like it" is your way. The way of someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Go back to Gannon.
In Ganon "I feel like it" explains everything and there is no need to explain anything or commit to anything.
Your science is a science of "I feel like it", a science of idiots.
Therefore a discussion with you is impossible.
If you didn't understand what I said, the following question will help you: Do you know what the definition of a moron is?
rival
To give a salary I desecrate Shabbat. On Sunday you will receive your first check. Enter the amount you want. how is it?
And be ashamed to write here after Shabbat, AP will be very disappointed with you.
Hahahahaha what an honor 😀
(Do you receive a salary?)
rival
You have just been appointed to be my spokesman for me worlds forever and ever.
A',
Are you writing here after Shabbat? Shame on you, God will be very disappointed in you.
AP,
1. ""The nothingness is not us", "There is nothingness", "Eternity exists". These are absolute truths and the basis of any rational discussion. Do you accept or deny?'
Listen, you have the right to define as rational anything you feel like, this of course does not mean that you are right. For example, I think that belief in God is the most irrational thing there is, do you want to argue about that?
"The non-nonness" - with that I am ready to agree.
"There is nothing from nothing" - I think that modern physics and quantum theory actually contradict this intuitive assumption. If you haven't seen it yet, search YouTube for the excellent lecture "a universe created out of nothing" by Lawrence Krauss where he explains it.
"Eternity exists" - ok I'm ready to accept that, but I don't understand how it has to do with God.
"Some things do not have a reason", it does not sound logical but as I told you in the previous section, science apparently shows us that there are things that do not have a reason. At least that's what senior physicist Albanzo claimed in one of the discussions here.
2. "Planning, planning and reason do not exist in nature. Shabotz turned himself into a man. that sight, hearing, touch, reason created themselves without sight, hearing, touch, reason. that man is an unplanned planner. That consciousness is matter... these are all blatant lies'
You sound very self-confident, but of course that doesn't make you right. These are not blatant lies, this is the real truth, just replace "created themselves" with - "evolved over a very long period of time in a well-known, proven and well-known process called evolution", then it will be true and accurate.
Miracles
I hope you didn't fight if there is a God.
In any case, can you take solace in the fact that now he must have a lot more scars?
rival
I was talking about philosophy. I don't know if this is even called proof. I don't see philosophers' arguments as proof anyway
A',
"There are professors of philosophy who write whole books proving that there is (one of them is the minister of something today) and there are professors who do the opposite"
You will probably only read this at the end of Shabbat (didn't it come in already? Or not, because there is still some light...) There can be no proof of any kind in the world for the existence of God for the simple reason that He does not exist.
(And no, the commenter who called himself "God" is not me)
To the opponent:
that eternity does not exist.
that exists from nothing.
that there is no reason is a reason. (the case)
that do not exist in nature planning, planning and reason.
Shabotz turned himself into a man.
that sight, hearing, touch, reason created themselves without sight, hearing, touch, reason.
that man is an unplanned planner.
that there is no real truth.
that consciousness is matter.
that a subject (spirit) derives from an object (matter).
that there is no freedom and free will.
that there is no absolute certainty.
that there is no absolute real value to a collection of atoms called a person.
All these and many others are blatant, open, clear and explicit lies that science believes.
Only a fool can see them as truths. A mindless person who has lost his sanity or a programmed robot whose words we are not aware of.
Science lies and all those drugged by it lie. You see in truth a lie and in a lie truth.
Do you like to lie to yourself? No problem.
Drown in your own insincerity? It's your eyes.
Call the truth a lie? You are allowed to fool around.
Ignoring logic as the order of fashion? So you have no sense.
Getting answers to all your questions. All your claims were refuted, yet you decided to stick blindly.
"The nothingness is not us", "there is nothingness", "eternity exists". These are absolute truths and the basis of any rational discussion.
Do you accept or deny?
-
No':
"You know that "intelligent planning" does not meet a scientific standard or the scientific way of working and yet you argue with me that it is science."
The scientific standard states that contradictions should not be accepted, but despite this it does not meet its requirements.
There is planning in nature.
It can be proven with scientific tools, through facts, definitions and a valid logical conclusion, therefore not accepting it is a contradiction.
Now you realize that you understand my words the other way around. I recommend that you do not rush to draw unfounded conclusions from them.
Miracles
When Yuval Steinitz, when he gave you the punch, did he say: "I give miracles a punch, does that mean I and miracles exist"?
God
There are two more hours
At first I thought it was a rival?
To Whom It May Concern
what do you want from me Let me pass the Sabbath in peace.
A.
This minister is a classmate of mine... I have a scar on my chin because of it, so let's not talk about it 🙂
Any philosopher worth his salt has learned that existence cannot be proven. In mathematics it is possible, but that does not mean that something exists in reality.
Regarding my faith, what I am saying is that I only believe in things that are natural. That is - there is a way to test their existence. Everything else belongs to the supernatural.
Miracles
So maybe I misunderstood. I got dizzy and stopped reading in the middle. I only know that there are philosophy professors who write entire books proving that there is (one of them is the minister for something today) and there are professors who do the opposite. I personally don't appreciate philosophy or a professor. So I don't know who is right (in terms of charges)
Regarding the Atizems, I still don't feel like I understood your intention.
A.
I think that the question of the existence of a creator or planner is no different from the question of the effectiveness of homeopathy, talking to the dead in séances, the existence of ghosts and so on. All of these are supernatural, meaning - outside of science. I will certainly understand that a believer would not accept this.
A.
Descartes did not conclude that there is a God from "I think...". He made an ontological argument for the existence of God, a false argument by the way. In "I think" he builds on the fact that God exists and is good, in order to conclude about the world.
Miracles
I would appreciate it if you could explain more.
For example, what exactly did you not like in the example definition?
A.
I used to think I was an atheist, until I realized that this term does not describe what I believe in. I did not find a suitable concept in Hebrew, but for me the distinction is between faith in the natural and faith in the supernatural. It is more understandable, to me, and easier to define. It shouldn't offend anyone either. Am I right in your opinion?
rival
I don't understand what the problem is with turning the guide's argument into an argument against planning
It doesn't make any more or less sense to me than Descartes' philosophical claims that there is a God. (You know that the continuation of I think means I exist means there is a God?)
Maybe it's not so well written but it makes no less sense.
Again, I personally don't like this style at all.
rival
Regarding meat substitutes, just remember that you have to be a vegetarian for a long time to think that the taste is similar to meat?
Besides, to be a believer/religious you don't have to kill animals.
Now ask…
A.P.
You can also define science as a game of chess
I define myself as religious because I have a strong connection to religion. But what to do when everyone defines religious as something else? So I don't present myself as religious because I don't accept the principle that you can't decide exactly what to think without a rabbi telling you. So I don't present myself as religious because that would be a lie. You know that "intelligent planning" does not meet a scientific standard or the scientific way of working and yet you argue with me that it is science. So apparently Shanisim is right and I was wrong about you.
A.P.
And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed AP and it was not known that he came near her.
A',
1. The example with the meat substitutes is excellent and I really thought I would give it to you as an analogy to what I wrote.
2. "Remember that there is always a third option in the middle"
Obviously, I didn't say anything to contradict that.
3. "Regarding the bad things, I believe they have nothing to do with God"
Okay... tell that to all those whose relatives were murdered by the ISIS organization.
A.P.
It's a bit embarrassing for you to be caught in lies... You are full of self-confidence, without any understanding of science, and without an iota of integrity. I really understand you.
If you don't want to be called a liar - go to another site. Here the child is called by his name.
AP,
"Science claims that...
1. There is no need for God.
2. The true and exclusive reality is the material"
But what to do if this is the truth? Do you have anything against telling the truth? What do you want to be lied to just to make you feel good about yourself?
rival
Regarding replacements
There is also an excellent substitute for soy meat. Really delicious and the longer you are a vegetarian the more it reminds me of meat (or the less I remember the taste of meat.)
now seriously.
Obviously I think there are substitutes. If it weren't for you and Maya, you wouldn't be moral, for example, I think it comes from that part of the soul (or neuron connections in the brain) that faith comes from.
There are probably really other ways to get everything I get from religion. And if you found them for yourself, great.
Regarding the "bad" things, I believe they have nothing to do with God and I do not "eat" them.
What is important is that if a day comes and you feel that it is not enough. Let's say someone you love gets sick, god forbid. Or you will experience a friendly employee. And yet choose to pray, and you will feel something. Something really big. And then even though everything will pass you will even want to feel it again. So abandon the thought that there is one way to be religious and that everything is a package deal, or that being a believer means accepting everything without asking questions. You can laugh, but I have seen many, many very rational, very smart people. And the more negative opinion they had about religion, when they repented, they realized everything they thought about religion.
Remember there is always a third option in the middle.
And never delete all the values that were used by you before.
Yes, there are things that you can believe in besides God, are they any less good? Not sure
Do they more meet the test of extreme rationality? Not sure
Are they better? Not sure either
For miracles:
If you didn't understand, I decided not to answer your questions.
You are not in control of your tongue and you do not deserve to be treated, especially as one to whom the truth is a stranger.
And this is evidenced by your tongue and your empty comments.
don't turn to me
A.P.
All I have left to say to you is "I am comforted by all that I have done". It just seems to you that you ate from the tree of knowledge. You have no opinion and there is no chance of having one. At this moment I add the eleventh commandment. Do not speak nonsense so that your days may be prolonged.
Science is….
A.P.
Science is a method for investigating phenomena. that's it. How exactly can a method contradict itself? Give yourself a slap….
No':
Science contradicts itself without God as an absolutely necessary point of departure.
Sorry you understood my words in the opposite way.
Without planning, science contradicts itself. Without eternity, science contradicts itself. Without the Eternal Spirit, science contradicts itself.
"Don't say intelligent design is science"
Everything based on truth, reason, logic, facts, senses, the subject and the object is science to me.
Intelligent planning is the result of intelligence.
This "illusion game" you call science"
What begins in nothing and ends in nothing (the universe) is an illusion.
Definition of idolatry: seeing matter as the cause of everything found. Seeing matter as an almighty creator. Seeing matter as the only reality.
"Don't lie and say you think intelligent design is science."
You didn't understand my words. Rather, you understood them in the opposite way.
"So you really don't believe that nature exists according to laws"
No, the laws of nature are contradictory as long as they do not take the Creator into account.
"That you are simply against science."
Not against science but against the role of God that he has taken upon himself. That is, against two things that science teaches and preaches with holy stubbornness:
1. That there is no need for God.
2. That the true and only reality is matter.
(I claim the opposite - that absolute reality is spirit and matter is temporary and transient)
In the hope that you will understand now and not be disturbed as before.
A.
Intelligent planning, like God, is magic. Everything can be "explained" with the help of magic. But it is not a scientific explanation, because it does not predict anything. I mean, I can't understand what will happen in the future through this explanation. Perhaps I should have pointed out that when I say that an explanation should fit the observations, then that includes future observations as well.
Intelligent design does not explain how the first replicator was created (the first cell is something much later) because of what I just explained. Actually science has several explanations for the first replicator and this is the problem: if you have several explanations for the same phenomenon then you don't know which one is correct. I guess in the near future we will know.
I know the guide thoroughly 🙂 I have the entire trilogy (which is made up of five books....). The books were written by a man with opinions like my opponent's and like mine 🙂
The example of the rhinoceros is serious. There is an illegal poacher in Africa and there are units with weapons that fight the poachers. I know such a unit from Australia, the IAPF.
Regarding the purpose of man's existence, I suggest you read the source of the Genesis story. There it is written that man is meant to serve the gods.
A',
"Rival, I didn't invent it. Ask the person who wrote the guide. I really don't like philosophical proofs (six years in a high school yeshiva)"
But this is not a non-philosophical or non-philosophical proof, it's just a jumble of nonsense.
rival
I didn't invent it
Ask the person who wrote the guide
I really don't like philosophical proofs (six years in high school)
A',
"If there is a God, then he must want to leave us the option of not believing"
So why is he punishing me if I don't believe in him?? What did he slip on the mind?
A',
"Because God is almighty, it is not possible for the existence of life to have no explanation"
It sounds to me something like: "Because in the United States there is a state called California, so it is impossible for there to be anyone who likes to eat schnitzel without chips and ketchup on the side." Like, I don't see any logical connection between the two parts of this sentence.
rival
She really wasn't clear with the dragon before
And a little more seriously
If there is a God then he must want to leave us the option of not believing. Otherwise we would all know there is a God, because God is omnipotent it is not possible for the existence of life to have no explanation.
But this is a theological argument, not a scientific one.
A',
1. "The issue with human life is as an example of moral laws that do not arise from a scientific place but from within the person"
But I also claim that morality comes from man (and not from God). What problem do you see with that?
2. "The dragons are really not a good example. It seems to me that if they were, we would have found them.'
I forgot to mention that they are invisible... you have no way to test their existence, but you have to believe in them.
3. "I really can't prove to you that there is a God." I might be able to try to explain to you what the advantages are, but not in a comment on the website.'
The problem is that along with these advantages come a lot of disadvantages and a lot of dangers... isn't it better to just give it up? There is no shortage of other things that can fill the gap and what this faith gives.
The explanation for the non-existence of God according to the Babel fish
.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," said God, "because proof is against faith, and without faith there is no self and nothing." "But," said the man, "a Babylon fish stings you, doesn't it? It is not conceivable that it developed by chance. This proves that you exist, and therefore, according to your own arguments, you do not exist. parable." "Oh, God," says God, "I didn't think of that." And in that place disappears in a cloud of logic.
Lucky there is no Babylon fish?
Miracles
A. I think you are wrong about science. "Intelligent design" has no problem explaining anything. There are even things that are easier for him to explain such as how the first cell was formed. Even if you find an imperfection, it will be possible to say that it is probably the will of the designer.
B. I hope the example about the rhinos is humorous.
rival
A. The matter with human life is an example of moral laws that do not arise from a scientific place but from within the person. Your explanation also has problems but it doesn't matter it was just an example.
B. The dragons are really not a good example. It seems to me that if there were we would find them.
third. I really can't prove to you that there is a God. I may be able to try to explain to you what the advantages are, but not in a comment on the website. Is this a reason to believe? probably not.
If you don't feel the need to believe in my opinion, keep it up (maybe just a little less anti?)
A',
I don't feel any need to believe in things that aren't true like God, tooth fairies, dragons and invisible gnomes, I don't feel that I lack it in any way and I don't think that my lack of belief in this nonsense makes me a less moral person.
A',
Regarding "human life is better" here is again the answer I gave you earlier:
Obviously, in our opinion, a human life (and even a person with severe mental retardation) is more important than the life of an animal (or alternatively, the life of a super-intelligent alien who came here from another planet) because we are human and therefore we obviously care more about the life of those who belong to our group, compared to who who belongs to a different group (even from someone who belongs to a different nationality).
I promise you that if you give a cow a mind, she will tell you that her calf's life is more important than your life.
A',
"How can science slap God (I can understand religion) if it starts from the premise that there is no God"
Science also cannot contradict the existence of fairies, and the existence of an invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, the question is why believe in these things? Why assume that they exist at all?
A.
And regarding what you said to Maya - I don't think science assumes there is no God. As I said, the science is simple - postulate something and check that it is true. "Correct" - suitable for observations.
I tried to assume that there is a God who loves man, and this does not fit the observations. So I tried to assume that there is an "intelligent planner", and that doesn't fit either.
I also tried to assume an evil god. And it's already hard for me to reject...
A.
And regarding what you said to Maya - I don't think science assumes there is no God. As I said, the science is simple - postulate something and check that it is true. "Correct" - suitable for observations.
I tried to assume that there is a God who loves man, and this does not fit the observations. So I tried to assume that there is an "intelligent planner", and that doesn't fit either.
I also tried to assume an evil god. And it's already hard for me to reject...
A.
Getting the fix!
A.
I have an example that human life is not better - the treatment of tiger and rhino poachers.
Miracles
More correctly, how to identify unintelligent.
This test is not really enough to see if he is intelligent. But it is enough to state the opposite
Maya
I was in the middle of writing a rather long comment and in the end I decided to delete everything. Mainly I tried to explain the importance to the existence of a humane and modern religious approach. In today's situation people are completely atheist/agnostic/secular. When they are really required to have a religion because what to do the reasons that an existing religion has not passed away from the world like miracles and a rival might want to think. So when they are already looking for religion, they reach the darkest and most permissive places. And I saw neither one nor two of them. Because all their lives they didn't think there could be anything in between. (Really, I found myself saying more than once, it's good that you started believing, but why like that?) In short, I wanted to lay out everything I believe in at length and why it's a shame that secularists think in black and white about religion. Of course it didn't work and I deleted everything.
Still a question. How can science slap God (I can understand religion) if it starts from the premise that there is no God (as I wrote, it must behave this way to get answers)
And she asked: "A change that reduces the ability to reproduce but does not prevent it completely does not have to be a change in the chromosome." I'm only asking biologically (is it possible to fertilize or not) is most of the time the reason is chromosomes?
And in relation to human life to a living nation. I find it hard to believe that you absolutely do not think that human life is always better. Would you be against animal testing for a life-saving medicine?
This does not mean that there is no value to animal life or their suffering.
A.
It is quite easy to recognize an intelligent believer. When you ask him a question that he doesn't know how to answer, then he says "I don't know how to answer that question".
A.P.
I am ashamed of you
Miracles,
"AP, may I ask what your name is to speak in the name of God?"
What happened to you, he and God are like this || , he knows everything about him.
A.P.
"Physical reality is fundamentally contradictory. Without senses there is no science. There is no universe. There is no truth. Sensory science contradicts itself.
The truth of science is the void and nothingness. Science absent God - empty and non-existent. A game of illusion.
Science is modern idolatry and the idol is the same idol - the material."
So why do you insist on saying that this "intelligent design" meets a scientific standard. For the first time I'm starting to think that Nissim is right and you're really lying. Until now I really thought you believed everything you said. If you don't accept the way science works then fine. But don't say that intelligent design is science. Science is based on a number of axioms, you may not get them right, but only with the help of the one that laid them down you have a computer today. This does not prove that they are correct either. I also don't think you understand what an axiom is. If you don't accept that it is right to explore nature with the help of the senses (ie conducting experiments) fine. .just a reminder of how we used to act like this we didn't have today's technology. You might be willing to accept it, if you think science is idolatry. I really don't understand where you got that from. It was indeed a common thinking in the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages that trying to explore nature with the help of the senses is heresy. But I have not heard such an approach in Judaism. Not that you have to follow the Jewish approach if you don't want to. This "illusion game" that you call science, is very profitable. But if you believe it's idolatry, I understand that it doesn't matter to you how much it pays. But don't lie and say you think intelligent design is science. I really believed you.
"Physical reality is fundamentally contradictory" so you really don't believe that nature exists according to laws. OK, that's an axiom in science. It is clear that it cannot be proved otherwise it would not be an axiom.
"The truth of science is the void and nothingness. Science absent God - empty and non-existent. A game of illusion." When you say about something empty you have to say what you wanted to find. You can tell a bottle of milk is empty even though it has air in it. So yes there are things that are not in science. It does not contain an answer to how a person should behave and what is moral. But that doesn't mean it's empty. In science there is no God either, this is part of its axioms. The good news is that he doesn't even try and can't prove that there isn't. Ruthie explained it very well. So after revealing your true face that you are simply against science. (Science is research with the help of the senses, don't invent a new definition) So there's really no point in a scientific debate (perhaps a theological one, but just as science assumes there is no God, theology assumes there is, so there's no point in those who don't believe arguing. I can argue with you theologically, but I don't want to) I'll just say That I tend to assume that people don't lie to me and that's precisely why I'm angry. Why am I just trying to explain to you why planning is not scientific and in the end you oppose science at all.
rival,
Read the New Testament.
After you read you will understand that if a snake calls itself a person, it does not mean that it is a person.
The disguise of the Nazis as believers does not change anything from the race theory which is directly based on Darwin's theory.
The race theory contradicts all the principles of Christian morality, the first of which is the love of man and God.
There is no contradiction between Darwin's theory and the theory of race.
If a species destroys parts of itself or other species, this does not mean that it has developed survival traits that require it, just as Darwin's theory has no problem with a predatory species.
A.P.
Is it allowed to ask what your name is to speak for God?
To Ruthie:
"Who is the definer?"
God defines himself:
His definition is eternal perfection.
"What are its definition tools"
Definition is the identification of objects using objects.
God is not an object, meaning it cannot be defined.
Despite this, it can be defined using his own words: .
Eternity and infinity, the one truth that has no second. The Absolute Eternal Spirit.
The tools of definition are the words of the Absolute;
Infinite freedom, eternity, the one truth that has no second, the eternal spirit, eternal peace, infinite love, absolute purity and more..
"It is impossible for humans to define something that is defined as incomprehensible to humans in the first place."
His original definition which was "incapable of sensory perception" was distorted in order to deny it.
Opposite definition:
God exists in everything and every person.
If so, there is no buffer between God and man except man's desire to expel him from his face.
"It's just that we can't define it scientifically and include it in our scientific theories."
Not that they can't, they don't want to.
We don't want to define the scientific truth as the truth of everything; Science is not interested in revealing the divine truth, but in denying it. He is not interested in eternity, truth, freedom, love, eternal life, because he is empty and there is none, to which he will aspire, which he will serve.
Physical reality is fundamentally contradictory. Without senses there is no science. There is no universe. There is no truth. Sensory science contradicts itself.
The truth of science is the void and nothingness. Science absent God - empty and non-existent. A game of illusion.
Science is modern idolatry and the idol is the same idol - the material.
A.
I don't think anyone is justifying the evil deeds you mentioned with the help of evolution, rather evolution is, perhaps, part of the explanation for the phenomenon. And if you understand why something happens, then there is a way to deal with the phenomenon.
Religion is much more dynamic than it presents itself.
"They" by the way is a rival and miracles (don't be offended?)
I have a few things to say about it but it's too late for me now. I will write a response tomorrow. ?
א
who are they And why do I sound more moderate than them?
The fundamental difference on the moral level, in my opinion, between religion and science is that in religion there is one truth and that is all. Whoever does not obey this truth is immoral. And so religion at its core encourages immoral behavior because it does not encourage independent thinking but following a set of rules and this set of rules is not dynamic. In science this is not relevant at all. Truth is by definition dynamic and will always change according to reality. So when people do immoral things in the name of religion, they usually follow the laws that are simply written in religion (see the value of not saving Gentile lives on Shabbat, for example) when people do immoral things in the name of science, they just say it's in the name of science because science doesn't tell you to do Nothing, science is a process for exploring the world. You want to take the conclusions of this process and throw it on some network of rules you invented? Okay, but that's exactly religion. In short, I don't think people are more or less moral if they are religious or not. There are very terrible people on both sides and there are very good people on both sides. I do think there is something intrinsic in religion, this encouragement of following non-dynamic laws without exercise of judgment that can encourage immoral behavior. This does not mean that all religious people (or even most) blindly follow these laws, but in science there is nothing like that because there are no non-dynamic laws.
I think this is the basic contradiction between religion and science and I do not think like you that science does not contradict religion or the existence of God. I do accept your right to think like that and as long as you act like a human being (and from my superficial acquaintance with you over the airwaves, you seem fine so far) there is no problem with that.
By the way, I also don't think that human life is superior to other lives. Man is the one who rules the earth, there is no doubt about that. Would we really want everyone in control to decide that their life is superior to all other lives? By the way, this has nothing to do with eating meat in my opinion (even though I'm a vegetarian), but it definitely has something to do with the way of "treatment" of the animals that are meant to be eaten in any form. I think we pretty much agree on this.
Well, that was a very confused answer but in my defense I worked hard all morning and used my lunch break to write this and now I have to go back to hard work, so I didn't have that much time to organize my thoughts.
Maya
Just now it sounds more interesting to me what you think about the discussion that was here about religion, evolution and morality. You sound more moderate than them to me.
I personally think that a lot of times evolution is used as if to justify all kinds of immoral behaviors, a bit like there really are those who use religion. It begins with a quote from the phrase "the strong survives" (which, regardless, is not quite accurate, the one who survives is the one who managed to adapt to the change. He could be weaker and less developed or just lucky.) and continues with justifications for immoral sexual behavior because "every male wants to spread the His genes." And of course the answer to the question of how you have no problem eating an animal that was forcefully shoved a funnel down its throat and shoved food into it to create a really, really tasty dish. "We carnivores like this in nature" (it is not clear which part as in the nature of the funnel?! )
Now it will seem ridiculous to you if you are presented together as evolutionists. But that's what excites me sometimes.
: )
rival
I am indeed very successful, but there is no reason to call me God...
Here you see, she replied.
God loves you.
OK then I'll shut up 😀
א
I actually read all the messages (I really woke up in the morning to a flood of messages and I didn't really know how to deal with it and I really thought about not responding, but your crying touched my heart...)
I have all kinds of things to say about the whole discussion that took place here about evolution and religion and crimes "in their name" and also about the supremacy of man, but I will give up because I really don't have the strength.
Regarding your questions - a change that reduces the ability to reproduce but does not completely prevent it does not have to be a change in the chromosome. There are many changes that can do this and what you wrote sounds like a fairly plausible mechanism for creating a new population. Regarding the lizards, I answered you that if I understood correctly what you wrote, then this is roughly what I wrote in a new wording, so it seems to me that you understood what I wrote.
Sorry for the bad explanation of Down's syndrome and I again go back to my offer to explain to you exactly how such syndromes are created.
Regarding circumcision, I understood that this is the reason why you wrote this, you simply said that if done with a doctor it is probably less problematic and I just wanted to point out that it is still very problematic. In fact, it's problematic that doctors do it at all in my opinion and a bit contrary to their oath, on the other hand, if they didn't do it people would still be sedating their children with all kinds of flower arrangements, so there is probably some kind of medical responsibility here. I do not know. The issue is not trivial at all. I would be very happy if this despicable custom were passed away.
rival
I am afraid that most of Maya's messages will not read my last questions and will not answer them
And it's mostly my fault?
rival
Do not know. Maybe you're right. But AP Makes me miss the outside of the box. Even to his heart.
When people talk nonsense then you have to answer them.
A',
I have no idea what you were trying to say.
What, you don't agree with me?
rival
Isn't the truth?
I studied for 6 years in a high school. And I get dizzy just trying to read this way of thinking that leads to nothing.
A',
"Rival, I hope you at least have fun arguing with AP"
I hope you enjoy reading.
AP,
"God is eternal. Eternity does not need a creator. It is not possible for him to create
Just nonsense.
And where did Bio go, he promised us a 400 million year old mammal fossil. Bio, where is the fossil?
rival
I hope you at least have fun arguing with AP.
Miracles
abandoned. What I mainly wanted to say is that it is forbidden to conclude from science a way of life/morality/religion.
I hope you understood me. The statement man is not superior is correct for a biology class and scientifically correct. Outside of class, any other question is not a correct statement, certainly not in morality nor in religion.
for miracles:
1. Read my definition again, hint, the opposite of what you wrote.
2. Did you mean from the particular to the general?
He collects the grains (details) and puts them in a glass (the whole, the whole). The location of the grains inside the glass is not important in this case, since they are identical and the whole (the full glass) that consists of them is the same whole.
The same process can be repeated again and again because information is not created or lost at any stage. (The opposite of planned)
PS: Call someone who calls a fool a fool. Be careful with your tongue!
To the opponent:
"It can exist for you just like that without anyone creating it, interesting."
God is eternal. Eternity does not need a creator.
It is not possible for him to create, the person who wants to win creates does not understand what he asked.
AP,
"In short, this is the out-of-nowhere argument that I oppose."
It's interesting that you don't have any such problem when talking about God, he can exist for you just like that without anyone having created him, interesting.
A.
I disagree with you. We agree that science is a method to test claims.
In morality, there is not always one right answer. Do you need me to give you examples?
Miracles
It was really unclear to me.
All I wanted to say is that just like there is a correct scientific equation and there is an incorrect one. Thus there is a correct moral law and there is not
A.P.
This is one of the dumbest sentences I've heard 🙂
1) Planned, from the general to the particular is not possible? Have you ever heard of the term reverse engineering?
2) Unplanned, can we always go from the general to the particular? I take a glass of salt and throw it in the air. How does his honor return the salt to the glass, each crystal in its place?
Where did you get this nonsense?
A.
I don't understand where you are going. Science is a method. I don't understand what "absolute method" is. The idea is simple - I think X is true, and you think Y is true, so let's examine observations and see who is right. Can you think of a better method?
What does one truth mean? Do you think that one day all humans will agree on everything? Will we all agree how to divide the limited budget of each government?
A',
Obviously, in our opinion, human life (and even with severe mental retardation) is more important than the life of an animal (or alternatively, the life of a super intelligent alien who came here from another planet) because we are human and we care more about those who belong to our group.
I promise you that if you give a cow a brain she will tell you that her calf's life is more important than your life.
To the opponent:
Planning does not depend on the degree of complexity or its existence.
Complexity can be simple but planned or very large and unplanned.
Planning can be complex or not complex at all, for example, a vase is not made of parts, even though it is planned.
"The number of possible combinations with the components of a living cell (and even a simple one) is too great for a scientist to go through and calculate/test them all in the lab, even with the most powerful supercomputer available today."
This is the argument from faith in the almighty case. Most evolutionary scientists do not believe this explanation.
"Bio" gave many examples of why the "universal computer" is completely powerless in relation to the ability required for such an operation.
In short, this is the out-of-nowhere argument that I oppose. This argument shows why this is not science but blind faith.
for miracles:
Air conditions are specifically defined.
Temperature, pressure, speed.
The environmental properties are part of the water properties, temp., for example.
The crystallization property of water is also specifically defined.
The sum of the definitions and attributes allows us to deduce the properties of a snowflake.
If it were oil drops, no "oil flake" would have been formed.
That is, from the properties of the parts that always include the properties of the environment (each physical property is defined in relation to a given environment),
You can get a snowflake. Information was created as if new, but this information was already specifically included in the system.
In the planned information is not included in its parts. If you never came across an engine and were given its parts, you couldn't make an engine.
"If they gave you the properties of water and also the process by which a snowflake was formed - only then could you deduce the properties of the snowflake."
Regarding a living cell: if you were given its parts, it would be impossible.
This was impossible because the properties of the cell components do not include the way it is assembled, the structure and activity of the whole cell.
To summarize, the difference between planned and unplanned is that in planned one can only deduce from the general to the particular, but not the other way around.
In the unplanned it is possible to conclude from the particular to the general and vice versa.
Miracles
Is science absolute?
Does everyone think like us?
What does it matter if everyone thinks so? Just because there is one truth doesn't mean everyone knows it. The fact that in the future science will know more and part of what we know today is a mistake does not mean that there is no single truth. It is that in the future the world will be more moral and maybe some of what is considered moral today will not be so. Doesn't mean there isn't one truth.
A.
I think like you, that human life is better than the life of any animal. But - this is not an absolute thing, and not everyone thinks like us.
rival
So because he is more intelligent than his previous example life?
This is not a moral statement. What about a severely retarded person compared to a chimpanzee? You don't think that previous human life is an absolute length that does not arise from one reason or another? Has nothing to do with science or any scientific measure?
A.
I never said that. Why do you think I think so?
I do lack any belief in anything unnatural, such as God, homeopathy, spirits, unicorns, souls and séances...
A',
"You too, if you are a moral person, must believe that man is a superior species. It doesn't matter what science says biologically.'
Man is the animal with the most developed mental capacity, and this is what allows him to understand moral issues better than a cow or a donkey. Do you want to call it "superior"? for health
A.
Morality is not something absolute, and not everyone's human life is better than animal life. There were cases...
Miracles
So you are 100% completely rational?
Sure?
Don't believe in anything? (in the sense of faith above rationality)
Miracles
No, I really don't think so.
But I think that if they draw conclusions from science to morality it is necessarily immoral. If anything, the question should be whether the nation of non-believers is believed. And even then the answer is no.
Because even people who do not believe in God (for the most part) believe in moral laws in the same way that religious people believe in God. Even if they never defined it that way. The example with human life for a living nation is, in my opinion, a good example. The belief that there is a previous human life does not rely on any logic or scientific experiment and cannot be supported by any argument.
A.
What I mean is that we are an evolved creature, just like any other living creature. We are not a "chosen species", there is no abnormal grandfather in the sky who takes care of us, or punishes us. We have no soul. There is no life after death.
The only thing that sets us apart from other creatures is grammar. that's it. How did you get to morality?
Miracles,
I don't think you can claim something like this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population
You too, if you are a moral person, must believe that man is a "superior" species. It doesn't matter what science says biologically.
To say that man is just like an animal. It is an immoral statement regardless of religion or non-religion. So the theory of evolution does not slap religion. Because like you (I hope) you don't believe that man is not "superior" even though you accept evolution. Thus a religious person should not believe that man is not "superior"
A.
Are you claiming that non-religious people are less moral?
bio,
The truth is that I actually have an exact definition for a fossil that is out of place (I had one before too) but I just don't feel like giving it to you. Draw an evolutionary tree on a sheet of paper, use your mind a little and maybe you will understand.
I already told you, a mammal fossil from 400 million years ago or a human fossil from 65 million years ago would be a very difficult problem for evolution. Why are you unable to provide even one such example here??
After all, for you there shouldn't be any problem with that, they were all created within one week, right?
A.
How does this relate to morality?
I'm talking about what you wrote to Ruthie
"The problem is that then man is a contingent species, and without the assumption that man is a "superior" species, no religion has any meaning."
Bio
The claim was that the whale had femurs which were an evolutionary relic.
The first article you linked to - from a reputable site - reinforced this claim.
The second article you referred to - from a garbage site - talks about the waist bones in general.
You remain a liar. deal with it.
Both = both.
A.
What are you talking about?
Miracles, what does it matter if it is the pelvic or hip bones? In both cases these are remnants of a terrestrial evolutionary relic from the past according to the supporters of evolution, and for both they claimed dysfunction. But may it be as you say. If I disprove the claim about the second bone for you as well, or at least provide you with another logical explanation, thanks, evolution is nonsense?
The last message is about the doggobe for Ruthie
"The problem is that then man is a contingent species, and without the assumption that man is a "superior" species, no religion has any meaning."
Miracles
What you are doing now is no less serious than Bio is doing.
Bio deduces from faith to science and the result is ridiculous.
You are doing something worse than that. You deduce from science to morality!
Morality aspires from a different place than science. Even an atheist his morality does not come in the way of science. He also inhales it from the same place of faith. Indisputable and undisputed or proven! !
Man is superior, it doesn't matter what science says and how much it will be proven that he is unique in the living world!
Human life is always better. Even as a vegetarian he was never opposed to animal experiments for medicine.
Human life is equally valuable even if science really found a less developed race of people.
Just as one must not deduce from faith to science one must not deduce from science to a way of life. Read what social Darwinism is and you will understand what I am talking about crimes in the name of evolution. (on behalf of. not because of)
Human life is also not prioritized because it is more intelligent or by any scientific measure that can be measured. It's something absolute period. Even the most severely mentally retarded, his life precedes the life of the most intelligent chimpanzee.
Bio
Please - stop lying. This is not the place. Except for you, there are no idiots here.
bio,
The truth, do you have a fossil of a mammal from 400 million years ago or were you just working on us? 😀
By the way, to them = to them. And regarding the possibility of the development of a three-part system - more on that later...
Bio
You wrote "and as far as we know and from all possible research the answer is not absolute"
You're a liar.
Bio
The article you linked to talks about the waist bones. We were talking about thigh bones. Do you know these are different things?
I would appreciate a short answer.
Ruthie, don't confuse evolution with natural selection. Natural selection selects but does not create. No creationist would dispute the process of natural selection. The dispute is over the question of whether a complex biological system (supposed to consist of abc parts) can develop through a process of mutations + natural selection. And as far as we know and from all possible research, the answer is not absolute. For there is no use in a without b and there is no use in both without c. Natural selection can only work when there is a functioning system. But when a functioning system requires a number of parts, natural selection can only throw up its hands for lack of choice.
Rival, then you admit that you have no definition for a fossil that is out of place. Of course, this is because you know what the consequences of this definition will be. By the way, even a 400 million year old mammal is not a problem for the theory of evolution. They will always be able to solve this by claiming that someone buried it in a deep layer (a person who buried a pet for example), or by convergent evolution (see the example of the Tasmanian wolf and the dog) or a mistake in dating or any other nonsense. Science is not.
Miracles, you said:
"One thing I expect to see is that a planned object has a number of odd parts"-
So an ice structure in the shape of the Statue of Liberty is not proof of a planner because he is not a freak? Well, that's something new.
And about the nonsense of the leg bones: thank you for being wrong and that's it, instead of squirming. You claimed that the Leviathan had the remains of degenerated legs. So I brought an article that showed that they have a role in the reproductive mechanism of the leviathan. What's the excuse now?
bio,
Why are you going round and round? I don't have exact definitions for you. You said you have a fossil of a mammal from 400 million years ago which is definitely a very difficult problem for the evolutionary tree, show us the fossil please!
And I remind you, not from a creationist website.
Ruthie
The problem is that then man is a contingent species, and without the assumption that man is a "superior" species, no religion has any meaning.
By the way, what is the problem with supposing that natural selection (what is called 'evolution') is a mechanism that God designed and implemented at the push of a button, while including in the code all the relevant parameters, including randomness and pressing 'play' and since then it has been working as we see it? Then there is no need for thousands of exhausting creative examples.
It is true that you can manage without the 'great planner' to explain natural selection, but if you want to claim that God is the cause of causes, isn't it easier that way?
It is impossible to refute the 'running the code' argument, which settles things from a religious point of view, but we cannot use science with assumptions that cannot be contradicted in the first place. Then creationists can accept natural selection, and scientists will continue to not have to involve God in the things they need to investigate (because really, the existence of God is not an assumption that I can use to explain why in some samples some drug works and in others it doesn't)
Bio
Now about the machine. One thing I expect to see is that a designed object has a number of odd parts. After all, no sophisticated machine that we know is a monolithic body, right?
Bio
You asked for signs of planning - here I gave you the first one - and you probably agree that we don't know if life has a purpose or not, right?
Bio
You are so ignorant it's amazing.... Explain to the forum, please, what is the connection between the waist bones and the femur?
What a jerk………………….
Bio
There is no such object. Everything, even the most complex, if you prove to me in an experiment that it can be fortified not by design. I'll accept that it's unplanned. If you prove to me that it was not designed because it appeared in nature, then I will be forced to assume that it was not designed and look for how it was created. Not because I don't believe in God. These are because if I look for this mechanism we may find it and this understanding will benefit humanity. If we don't search and assume it was created in a supernatural way, we won't get anything. If you find huge stone pillars in an almost perfect hexagon shape. You might at first think they were designed that way by a human. If this possibility is ruled out. I don't think you would say that God miraculously planned them that way. Although it cannot be ruled out. If we did that there would be no science.
Miracles, if you found a complex machine on Mars you would not always be able to know its purpose but only guess. So according to the above criterion if we find a sophisticated machine on Mars we can't conclude that it was designed?
Rival: For the fourth and last time - please define what a "fossil that is out of place" is. Not an example of such a fossil (man next to a T-Rex) but a definition. That is, a fossil that is not in its place is x. What is so complicated?
Bio
I have already given the list, but for you I will mention only the first one: vocation. Successfully….
Ruthie
Faith has nothing to do with science? That is - it is forbidden to draw conclusions from it?
bio,
As far as I know a human fossil from 65 million years ago will be a very difficult problem for evolution, the same for a mammal from 400 million years ago.
Maybe show us examples like this (and I remind you, not from a creationist website) instead of philosophizing so much?
And regarding the nonsense of "Leviathan's legs" here it is again if you missed miracles:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/whale-pelvic-bones-not-so-vestigial-after-all-140908.htm
Bio, good luck.
NOT
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2007/creationist-flowchart.png
Well Yariv and Nisim, I see that you are not addressing my questions anyway. For me, that means you raised your hands. So I'm giving you one last chance to develop the discussion, unless you're a little apprehensive (I can understand why). Rival, define "a fossil that is out of place" and then we'll see if one exists. This is the third time I've asked. Are you afraid that such a fossil does exist?
Nissim, I'll put it another way: what is the criterion by which you know for sure that an object standing in front of you is the product of planning? Then we will see if this criterion is compatible with a biological system.
bio,
"How will you determine if any object standing in front of you requires planning?"
When I see people like you talking so much nonsense it's completely clear to me that no one planned them 😀
A.P.
Regarding the possibility of defining God:
Who is the definer? A person.
What are its definition tools? The human perception and the human word.
Is the perception of God, in its entirety, possible by the human tools of definition?
In science, as opposed to spirit, there is no choice, we have to use some tools to define things.
I cannot write a scientific article without the things I refer to being defined correctly, or at least, there is a possibility of defining them, so that another researcher can disagree with me.
Human perception and ability to define are limited by the very nature of the tool. We are constantly developing tools to deal with these limitations. When we manage to define something, it turns from an idea (for example, the atom that the Greek sages referred to) into a 'physical and material' thing, in the sense that once it is defined we can use it in our experiments. We can perform an experiment or propose an alternative theory about the atom that will prove or disprove our theory, but we have no such option for God.
On the other hand, God can be experienced in a spiritual way, and within the set of laws of spiritual theories we can relate to God. But these theories are not scientific, and that's perfectly fine. Faith has no dependence on science.
But it is impossible for humans to define something that is defined as incomprehensible to humans in the first place. Of course, this does not mean that this thing does not exist, only that we cannot define it scientifically and include it in our scientific theories.
Even if we try to use the terms of infinity, eternity, etc., we will only be using certain aspects of the 'definition' of God, thereby breaking it down into components (as is done for anything in science).
It is fine to break down "stress" into its components and define it, partially, as an increase in the cortisol level (and of course one assumes from the beginning that the definition is partial). But as far as I know, it is forbidden to break God down into components and define his powers and abilities separately (which is actually a prohibition against worshiping idols).
Thank you miracles!
bio,
There are snowflakes that look so similar to gears! Are you claiming that someone designed them??
😀
a rival
A nice concentration, including of course rebuttals, to Bio's lies you will find here: http://www.talkorigins.org/
A.
Random in Hebrew is random
bio,
My previous comment was blocked, trying again... Even the lovely snowflake that I showed you earlier looks really similar to a gear, and there are some that look even more like that! So what are you actually claiming, that someone designed them? 😀
Father, what's going on here with blocking comments? Every comment of two and a half lines is blocked, really it's a bit excessive.
May I ask what caused the blocking of two of my comments on this page?
bio,
Also the snowflake (the charming and designed one!) that I showed you a picture of earlier, looks exactly like a gear wheel with a central axis, and on the same website there are other snowflakes that are even more similar to a gear wheel!
So what are you actually claiming, that someone intelligent planned them? 😀
Bio
It really doesn't matter what intuitively seems planned to me.
It sounds really planned to me that a star orbits another star. It really requires planning that the gravitational force pulling the planet will be exactly equal to the centrifugal force. (There is no need to correct me on the hundred mistakes in the sentence)
to me. A collection of perfect hexagonal stone pillars seems planned.
Experimentation and observation should prevail over intuition.
And there are a thousand and one experiments that show that random mutations can create new survival mechanisms (if there is any evidence at all)
rival
The guy has no problem lying blatantly. I don't have a problem with creationists - I have a problem with liars. Actually……….
Bio
Did you show me that I was wrong about Leviathan? where? The link you provided does not exactly support your position. Say, are you serious?
And why don't we have even one human fossil from 65 million years ago (the end of the dinosaur age)? Do you have an explanation for this?
bio,
XNUMX response pending…trying again:
Show us a mammal from 400 million years ago, and not a link from a website please.
bio,
Please show us a mammal from 400 million years ago, but an official article from a reputable science magazine, not a link from a creationist website. And I still don't understand why you can't show us even one human fossil from 65 million years ago, what exactly is the problem with that?
Miracles
Slavery ended long long after Darwin.
I didn't say she started because of Darwin.
But many used it as a justification.
Miracles, and if I show you that those mechanisms in nature require planning, will you admit that evolution is nonsense? Remember you were already wrong about the leviathan bones. Here's a question for you: How do you determine if any object standing in front of you requires planning? Specify the decisive criterion. After that we will see if nature requires planning according to the criteria you yourself have set.
Bio
What is your next "vision". Maybe you will challenge me, and not give something that has been known to explain for years? The bacterial whip is already boring...
Here is a link that clarifies the falsehood of my "bio" friends:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase#Evolution_of_ATP_synthase
My response was opened on the previous page. For those who missed it. In short - the existence of a planner can be proven from the systems in the body. The atp turbine for example is a good example.
A.
what??? What about evolution and slavery? During the slavery period in the USA they did not know what evolution was at all. The exact opposite is true - the blacks were considered a different, inferior race.
You must explain to me how you link evolution to slavery……. It fascinates me 🙂
A',
I don't think you are right, to this day I have not seen any reference that genocide or oppression of another people was done in the name of evolution. And in any case it is so irrelevant (and the discussion about it is boring) because even if it is or not, evolution is still a fact.
A.
I agree if what you say. But, precisely because of evolution (!) religions become extreme over the years. I should explain…
1) The range of religiosity is blocked on the one hand, you will not find a less religious person than me, an opponent, and other commenters here. On the other hand - there is no barrier. I see extremism in all religions, and also in Judaism. In the past - there were also women at the Western Wall and that was fine. In the past, religious people could serve in the army just like everyone else. And today there are Haredim who look exactly like the Taliban.
2) The evolution I'm talking about is conceptual evolution. You can look at religion (like any religious concept) as a form of life that is evolving out of nowhere. It reproduces, undergoes changes, there is a choice between these changes, and the changes are inherited. This is of course not my idea…
rival
Lucky that out of the box is not here?
And a moment before he almost agreed to see evolution as something not contrary to religion.
By the way. Slavery in the USA also had religious "justifications" (completely flowery), but for the overwhelming majority of intellectuals, the abolitionist justifications dominated
A',
I don't think outside the box here.
(I don't think he would hold back and not respond)
Rival, in a way you are right.
Sometimes it is done in the name of religion. Sometimes in the name of evolution.
Sometimes in the name of Leumit. And sometimes in the name of social equality.
Nor is homophobia only related to religion. It has a lot of hatred of the "natural" difference (natural, not moral! Actually moral is usually the opposite of the word "natural")
A',
Throughout history there has been hatred of foreigners, and an attempt to suppress and eliminate them, I really don't think it was done in the name of evolution.
Miracles. Regarding the gay community.
Remember what I told you about religions not going extinct but becoming more moral? The truth is one of the things I thought about at that moment.
We are at the beginning of this issue. There are already buds for change, they are still small and almost imperceptible.
(Outside the box, can you now call me a reformer? Because now I really don't have a Rabbi to quote yet, but it will change, it must change)
rival. I'm sorry if I sound too optimistic again. I am like that.
You can search and read about the effects on thinking that Darwin's theory had. Many of them are not positive at all. (I don't know if this is true, but Wikipedia claims that the Catholics' opposition was mainly for philosophical reasons of morality and not because of a slap in the face of the Holy Scriptures, which already at that time were not interpreted according to the simplistic way. Again, I don't know if this is true, but see the Big Bang They accepted with a hug even though it is also "a little" different from Genesis)
By crimes I don't just mean hawks and slavery in America. There are even unfamiliar things. Did you know that in the USA they used to sterilize thousands by force? Out of an understanding that we have to "improve" humanity.
I got it, I thought you were in the US most of the time.
rival
I'm in Sydney now - only 7pm.
Miracles,
What are you doing awake at hours like this? Isn't it supposed to be the middle of the night for you?
A.
You compared the attitude of Christianity and Judaism to the gay community. Both have unbearable attitude……. I even think that this is also true for "Religious Lite" - even there there is no complete acceptance of this community. I'd appreciate it if you told me I'm wrong.
And more from Wikipedia:
"The swearing-in of each SS candidate included, among other things, the following dialogue. The candidate was asked: "Why do you believe in Germany and the Fuhrer?" And he had to answer: "Because we believe in God, we believe in Germany that he created in his world and we believe in the Führer, Adolf Hitler, whom God sent to us."
A, do you still think that the Nazi Germans committed their crimes in the name of evolution?
Miracles
Obviously due to poor eyesight.
Crimes in the name of religion were also committed because of poor evidence
From Wikipedia:
"Hitler believed in the Supreme Providence that destined him for the position he took on and saw in several events that happened to him, such as the saving from the assassination of his life, as evidence that the Supreme Providence preserves his life."
Just because they thought they were better than everyone else doesn't mean they acted in the name of evolution.
A',
It's really nonsense what you say, I don't know of any crimes committed in the name of evolution. Hitler was a man of faith and mentioned God more than once, I don't think he mentioned evolution anywhere, and the Nazis did not commit their crimes in the name of evolution.
A.
You mean because of a poor understanding of evolution… biologically, there are no races of humans.
Miracles
To mention again the crimes committed in the name of evolution?
?
A.
And on the other hand, deaf children are not allowed to have a Bar Mitzvah. And they also cut those who were born circumcised.
There are laggards on all sides 🙂
Maya
"A change in the chromosome that does not completely prevent these reproductions only lowers the chance so that after the change has been created, several offspring can be produced, some of which will be normal and some with the change, so there is a chance of creating a new population." This is what I wrote based on what I understood from what you said that the mating barrier does not have to be black and white.
What about what I wrote about the lizards? Is it in the right direction at all?
post Scriptum.
Am I still mad at you for ruining my explanation of Down syndrome?
I mentioned the circumcision only to show that "intelligent planning" is built for the needs of Christian theology, which differs in several ways from Jewish theology (of course there is a similarity, do they have a common ancestor?) One of the things is the view of the world as perfect in the American Christian view. You can also see the difference in relation to the gay community. It is true that both do not accept them with a hug, but there is a difference, in American Nazareth it is customary to say that God does not make mistakes and therefore they do not accept at all the possibility that someone could really be gay or transgender by nature. If you listen carefully to the rabbis who are waging war on the gay community (admittedly it is not particularly fun to listen to them carefully. But it is interesting) the tune is a little different there, there is more recognition that it is innate sometimes even recognition that it cannot be changed (rare)
Well this is 60 seconds on theology.
AP,
It's just a matter of complexity. The number of possible combinations with the components of a living (and even a simple) cell is too great for a scientist to go through and calculate/test them all in a lab, even with the most powerful supercomputer available today.
But given billions of years and a huge laboratory the size of an entire universe, there is no reason to assume that this is not exactly what happened (especially in light of all the evidence for the correctness of evolution and the development from the simplest to the variety of life that exists today).
A.P.
If they gave you the properties of water and also the process by which a snowflake was formed - only then could you deduce the properties of the snowflake.
I think this is also true for a living cell.
To the opponent:
"Someone must have worked very hard on his design."
A snowflake does not meet my definition of planned.
The properties of the snowflake can be deduced from the properties of the water, contrary to the plan that its existence cannot be deduced from the properties of its parts alone.
In other words:
If a scientist from another world were given the components of a living cell, he would not be able to deduce from them a living cell.
No,
That a person evolved from an inferior being, there is no mention of it in the Bible and the prophets, the complete opposite is contempt for the Creator.
Man was created in the image, meaning he is a creature and a new creation that is different from all the animal world before him.
The man who was created was almost perfect and was given powers and abilities and absolute freedom of choice in order to bring creation and himself to perfection.
The story of heaven contradicts everything the rabbis, who have forgotten their origin, teach you.
There was an almost perfect reality, which man arrived at not through inferior creatures but as a completely new creation that reflects the divinity, destined for eternal life.
Man fell. Ask for fleshly life and receive fleshly life and you see the result. And what do your rabbis teach you?
that man's origin is from the lower and lower to the Dreon. Exactly the opposite of what the faith teaches. What is low and low and the Almighty God?
will not enable his employee to fulfill his purpose. And they will follow vanity and be led astray, so it is written and the truth is written.
Because of the weakness of the mind and faith and surrendering to fleeting temporary knowledge, the roots of which are illusion, your rabbis turned their backs on the essence of God and their faith was distorted beyond recognition.
א
There can certainly be genetic defects that will increase the incidence of chromosome union and, in general, various aberrations in chromosomes. All these processes are controlled by different molecules in the cell, so any change in these molecules (i.e. mutation) can change the frequency of these events.
I apologize, but it's a bit hard for me to follow. What are the other models you suggested?
Regarding the lizards, then yes, what you wrote is largely the explanation for this. Regarding the fact that the combination will always give a bad camouflage and then the mutation will disappear, it depends on a lot of factors - is more than one mutation needed? What is the mutation rate in the population? How bad is the camouflage? etc. so it's a bit hard to answer.
Maya
You can't think of a genetic defect that can increase the incidence of chromosome union? you are welcome?
What about the other models I presented?
The truth is that as I read the comment I thought that maybe it is possible with the lizards. I don't know if this is the explanation. If there is a common camouflage pattern. And a new type is created that also allows camouflage, he will be able to survive, if his descendants can be either with type A or B or a bad combination.
So the gene will be able to be passed on to future generations, but the groups will have to learn to prefer those who are similar to them (the one who always chooses his group, more of his offspring will survive)
I'm heading?
But if a combination produced only one result of poor camouflage then the first to create the new camouflage should have gone extinct because all its descendants would have gone extinct.
Or am I wrong?
Oh, and I didn't mean to either, but I will respond anyway on the issue of circumcision because I can't resist (I don't want to get into it either) so I'll just point out that the number of babies for whom circumcision causes unnecessary complications is not really known because the Ministry of Health does not release the This information (which means preachy, to me) so I made an assessment of the statistics of babies who arrive at the hospital as a result of two interviews I read with two heads of the pediatric urology department in two hospitals (I don't remember which one, I read the interviews quite a long time ago) and the statistics I calculated stand for About one percent, which means that one out of a hundred eight-day-old babies arrives at a hospital after an unnecessary medical procedure has been performed on him. The two heads of the department did not know how to assess whether there is a higher chance of complications with a doctor than with a sap (but they didn't really do the statistics). In other places I read that the chance with a doctor is indeed lower, but I don't know how much you can trust them. In any case, there are some complications that are intrinsic to the process itself and not related to who performed the process. I also have a lot to say about its relation to disease prevention but I will exercise some self-control and stop now.
א
Down's syndrome is caused by incorrect meiosis (you didn't want to hear how the mechanism of meiosis works, so now you don't know why ;)). The only reason that Down syndrome is common and with the other chromosomes it is not common is because when there is a trisomy on any of the other chromosomes (apart from the sex chromosomes) it is lethal (that is, the fetus does not develop at all and there is usually a miscarriage before the woman even knew she was pregnant). Except for two other syndromes of trisomy which do not cause abortion but cause babies who die almost immediately. So you only heard of Down syndrome because they are the only survivors and not because trisomy on chromosome 21 (which is Down) is more common for some reason.
Chromosomal changes do not have to occur only during meiosis (although specifically in meiosis there are reasons why they will occur more) but can occur in any cell in the body at any time and there are studies, for example, on the connection of such changes to cancer (there is a connection).
Regarding the lizards, there certainly didn't have to be a geographic barrier in the past. If you are interested, I will give you a link to an article on the subject. The issue is called parapatric speciation (not sure how to write it in Hebrew) which is differentiation on the same area as opposed to allopatric speciation which is differentiation with a geographical barrier.
rival
A. This should be a very rare event anyway.
B. There could be some possibilities that would make the chance very small but not impossible. 1. A genetic defect that causes a specific chromosomal change. 2. A change in the chromosome that does not completely prevent these reproductions only lowers the chance so that after the change is created, some offspring can be fortified, some of which will be normal and some with the change, so there is a chance of creating a new population. 3. If I understand correctly there are chromosomes that are more likely to go wrong like in Down's syndrome (I know this is a slightly different case and it is not a union of chromosomes) I assume that the tendency for disruption is found in everyone and has something to do with the structure of the particular chromosome, the fact that it is precisely the one that goes wrong (I know there are several other syndromes similar but this is the most common)
If there really were two populations that the chance of interbreeding between them is small, it seems to me that soon they will be able to distinguish who is in the other group because it would be a great advantage to know how to mate only with your group.
One last thing. Even in the lizards that Maya presented they could not develop on the same area cell. There must be some time that they were separated before.
To conclude at the beginning of the theory of evolution it was thought that the changes must be little by little. But today we know that change can also happen in a leap. Like say a color change that could be due to a single mutation.
I wonder if there is any chance for a model of species separations in a sudden process as well
(If a circumcision is performed in a hospital by a doctor, I don't think the risk is even higher than giving a vaccine. But I really don't feel like discussing this matter.
Let's just conclude that science and religion have a different number of chromosomes, and even if you succeed in joining them together, the product is as barren as a mule.?)
rival
What's nicer is that you can do this with a wide variety of variables and thus find out at which values what happens. So you can find out that for a range of combinations of certain variables two different populations will indeed be created that can no longer reproduce with each other, and for a range of combinations of other variables a situation will be obtained where the populations continue to be able to reproduce with each other, and for a range of combinations of other variables a situation will be obtained where There will be populations of all colors that can interbreed, and for a range of combinations of other variables, a situation may be obtained where there will be populations of all colors, two of which can interbreed and the third cannot, etc.
Then you write an article, and it doesn't get accepted anywhere important, and in the end, after a few years, you manage to get it into some insignificant journal, so that no one will hear about it unless they searched really, really hard, and then someone will think it's a question that interests them and will try to do it Almost exactly like you, but because your article is so hard to find, he won't find it and will do the same job himself again and then try to publish too…
rival
It is indeed nice to check in a computer simulation. I assume they did similar things, although I couldn't find it. What's more, keep in mind that it doesn't take much for two species to stop breeding with each other. All that is needed is for one of them to develop a mutation for a different mating time (a different day of the year or a different time of the day) for example so that they can no longer meet to reproduce even if they live in the same area.
By the way, this is the kind of thing that is really nice to check in a computer simulation, you can create, for example, an initial population in which everyone is gray and perishes at a certain fixed frequency, and define that every now and then a mutation appears in the offspring that causes it to be born green (type 1 camouflage) or blue (type 2 camouflage) which reduces, for example, by 40 % his chance to be eaten (compared to a gray creature). to define that a hybrid of green + blue parents will be born gray (lacking camouflage) and to define that when the total variation between the genes (all kinds of traits that can be selected, running speed, size, vision, energy efficiency...) is too great then the creatures can no longer reproduce between them.
Run the simulation and see how two separate populations are slowly formed, one green and one blue, whose genetic diversity no longer allows them to breed together (each group has accumulated changes that distanced it more and more from the other population).
I estimate that after a certain time the gray creatures will completely disappear from the screen and only blue and green creatures will remain, each of which can only breed with members of their species of the same color.
OK I got it.
rival
what walking death said
rival
Read the description again. Both have a different camouflage pattern, the hybrids have a camouflage pattern that makes them poorly camouflaged.
Maya,
Are you sure about the answer you gave to A? It doesn't sound that intuitive to me and it's not exactly what I imagined. I thought that in the situation you described the lizards without the camouflage pattern would prey and prey while the lizards with camouflage stripes would manage to survive, until finally only the lizards with camouflage stripes would remain in the area.
Are you sure that in the same living environment in the situation you described two separate populations will be formed? What will prevent the predators from completely exterminating the lizards without camouflage and leaving only those with camouflage? It is hard for me to imagine how in such a situation two different species would be created.
Maya,
Nice, sounds like you're enjoying it, and I agree evolution is really one of the most interesting topics and it also has a lot of practical uses (beyond the domestication of plants and animals) such as arguing with creationists on the internet 🙂
rival
The truth is that I still need to finally check whether it was successful or not. Specifically, it was not a very interesting experiment, just something small that we need to complete the picture, most of the real experiments are already behind us 🙂 I tested the distribution of polymer lengths under certain conditions and it was not completely successful, not for particularly interesting reasons (I used too little material for the device's sensitivity). The truth is that the topic we are discussing now is not what I am dealing with at the moment. It is related to my education and I was involved in evolutionary models in my PhD, but I made a field change in post and I am currently doing chemistry and materials. Although it seems to me that I will return to the evolutionary models a little in my independent research because I really like them 🙂
Miracles
I realised. I understood that he was asking about a complete loss of reproduction and not about damage only.
א
Species can split even without a physical barrier between them. Example: lizards with a certain pattern of stripes on the back that creates camouflage - two species in the same territory, each with a different pattern of stripes that each creates camouflage. The hybrids will have an intermediate model that will not necessarily create camouflage and therefore they will have difficulty surviving. So the two populations are in the same place, able to reproduce at first but there is a great priority to reproduce within the group, so such reproduction will go on and on until there is a complete separation between the species due to too high a difference and then they will no longer be able to reproduce between them.
A',
Did you look at the flake?? It's amazing you have to see, someone must have designed it.
Do you want to tell me that it is less complex than a pyramid?
AP,
Snowflake is planned? How does he come out so beautiful??
http://www.snowcrystals.com/photos/f0105b094A.jpg
Someone must have worked very hard on his design.
for miracles:
Purpose in the sense of use is one of the meanings of purpose. In this sense it is called a target.
Purpose has another meaning - the whole.
The whole is the purpose. The whole is what its components exist and work for.
Planning is a definition of the whole in thought and then a definition of its components as arising from that definition.
The components cannot be created by themselves, because they have no knowledge of the whole.
The whole is not part of their identity but they are parts of his identity.
A thing whose components derive from its definition and work for each other until its complete existence is a planned thing regardless of its purpose and regardless of its presence.
Planning is an objective attribute.
An engine is planned, a pyramid is planned, a creature is planned, the behavior of an animal is planned not because you want to call them that, but because they have an actual feature - planning.
Of course it does not contradict that planning can have a purpose.
I got a double message. Mistake of a full stop...
Hello Ruthie. The question of God's existence is a scientific question and must be examined with scientific tools. And these tools do prove its existence. As I said earlier - in nature there are exclusive characteristics of design: gears (discovered not long ago), free shafts, rotating motors (whips and atp turbines), wiring and isolation mechanisms, movement and sensing mechanisms, protection and camouflage mechanisms, disassembly and assembly mechanisms, repair and proofreading mechanisms and more. All of the above can only be explained by planning and not by a natural process. Otherwise we could argue that clocks, televisions and airplanes are not proof of design.
A, I really don't understand you. You claim that the Bible should be interpreted according to what science shows, and then when I show you that science actually refutes evolution, you still ask why I don't accept evolution = self-contradiction.
Rival, why don't you accept the definition I gave? If you do not agree that a fossil of a mammal dating back to about 400 million years (long before the appearance of its reptilian ancestors) would be considered a fossil that is out of place, then how do you want me to bring you a fossil that is out of place?
Hello Ruthie. The question of God's existence is a scientific question and must be examined with scientific tools. And these tools do prove its existence. As I said earlier - in nature there are exclusive characteristics of design: gears (discovered not long ago), free shafts, rotating motors (whips and atp turbines), wiring and isolation mechanisms, movement and sensing mechanisms, protection and camouflage mechanisms, disassembly and assembly mechanisms, repair and proofreading mechanisms and more. All of the above can only be explained by planning and not by a natural process. Otherwise we could argue that clocks, televisions and airplanes are not proof of design.
A, I really don't understand you. You claim that the Bible should be interpreted according to what science shows, and then when I show you that science actually refutes evolution, you still ask why I don't accept evolution = self-contradiction.
Rival, why don't you accept the definition I gave? If you do not agree that a fossil of a mammal dating back to about 400 my (long before the appearance of its reptilian ancestors) would be considered a fossil out of place then how do you want me to bring you a fossil out of place?
Maya,
How was the experiment?
What did you try to check, and what were the results?
Thank you Nissim,
That's about what I remembered. By the way, I didn't get to comment on the thread about the intertwined particles, but I got to try the experiment you suggested a few years ago with testing polarized light using two pairs of sunglasses in front of an LCD screen, yes it's nice (I read about it on the internet and tried it).
rival
I know two examples of what you describe - it's called "ring sex".
One example is salamanders around a valley in the western US. The second example is the seagulls around the North Pole.
In both cases - there is an area where there are two different species of the same type. The two species cannot interbreed. But - if you choose one of the species and walk around a circle, you find that everywhere the same species can reproduce with the neighbors on both sides. In the end, you return to the starting point with a new species 🙂
I know there are other individual cases like this, and one of them is also in the western United States.
In this context, I must point out that as a scientist I never had any problem with the Torah. I became interested in the fields I am involved in even before we studied Torah in elementary school and although I had fun seeing in the Torah references to the fields I study (physiology and its derivatives), for a moment I did not think of treating the Bible as an encyclopedia and summarizing from it in my notebook when there were verses that beautifully summarized ideas I learned about in my field.
In fact, in the main field in which I am involved, the Torah can be used to succinctly write down the assumptions of the work. I remember a verse I read as a child and wondered a lot about it, what exactly it meant physiologically. When I started introductory studies at the university, this was actually the first explanation the lecturer gave, as a basis for the field.
This is of course something that we do not expect to receive a number that, as mentioned, does not belong to the field of science. But due to the logical limitations I mentioned earlier, I cannot conclude whether the book was written by human or non-human intelligence. I can't prove that God wrote the book just because I couldn't think of any other solution to explain the knowledge. For example, it can be said that in the ancient human population there were very smart people who made good assumptions based on observing the world and logic (we know they existed, Socrates, etc.) and that there was an accumulation of information from many especially smart people in a book written over many years. And even if this sounds like a plausible explanation, I still have no way of concluding that there is no God, and that God did not (in some way belonging to his superhuman abilities) write these things. The unequivocal division in Islam and Judaism between man and God, when God is indeterminate and is always anything you can think of and more, settles matters in terms of theology and science.
I imagine that if I were to meet some kind of Superman in the Bible, it would not work out for me as a physiologist...
A',
In my opinion, the chance of splitting a group of animals that is in the same living area tends to zero, if one of the individuals in the group has a mutation that will not allow him to breed with the other members of the group, the chance that he will meet a mate who also happens to have the exact same mutation is slim in my opinion. But if you know how to write computer programs you can simply build an evolutionary simulation of a group of animals and see what happens and how it develops.
Regarding the foreskin, K recently brought here a link with a long list of all the unfortunate babies who came to the hospital in serious condition because of this barbaric ritual (some of them died 🙁 ) so do you think it's worth it?
rival
What I asked was actually about development in that area cell. Not about a situation of physical fragmentation and reunification. A defect in the structure of the chromosomes can theoretically create a non-gradual split (perhaps not completely sudden, say if there can be a connection between the groups but a low chance of pregnancy) so the process can actually be on the same area cell.
Regarding the foreskin. What answer did you get?
Of course it's ridiculous. Christian theology lessons forcefully push it into Judaism and then also try to market it as science. Is it clear that in the end "untasty chocolate cake" comes out?
A',
I know, know it.
It seems to me that if you ask Bio about removing the foreskin, he will quote you a series of studies that say that circumcision is beneficial to health and reduces the transmission of diseases and infections.
A',
"So what are you actually saying? that if it is planning then there must not be unnecessary parts? Why not?" (and you also mentioned illnesses and such before)
I didn't say it shouldn't, but it's just funny that you take something that is the complete opposite of intelligent design (flaws!!!) and present it upside down as if it is proof of intelligent design. It's a little ridiculous to say the least.
A',
A situation like you describe can occur (although not suddenly) when a group of animals begins to spread to areas where the conditions are different (for example there are predators, or a different type of food) then the creatures from the group that live in the new area will have to adapt to it, little by little two Separate groups that will develop more and more differences until at a certain point they can no longer breed with each other.
I think there is a famous example with lizards that were brought to the island and started to spread around it, and finally they met (closed a circle) but the lizards on both ends could no longer breed together.
Maybe Nissim remembers.
rival
So what are you actually saying? that if it is planning then there must not be unnecessary parts? Why not? Because they say that the planner is God, so the planning should be perfect? But they can say he chose to make it imperfect. What will you say then?
Contrary to the original intelligent design which is Christian theology. Jews can have a problem.
Rival, try asking Bio about the foreskin?
Is it unnecessary or not?
(Sages took up the issue and said that God did not create the world perfect at all. Another thing that shows why this theology is Christian and not at all suitable for Judaism)
Maya
I was less interested in the full mechanism that prevents or makes it difficult for those with a different number of chromosomes to reproduce. I was more interested in whether a sudden split of species could occur. If so it's really interesting, it means that species can split even without a physical barrier between them. Let's say a certain species will start eating a certain food, it will have an advantage. But a similar species that cannot do this will not cease to exist. And all this without a physical barrier. Simply because the genes cannot spread to everyone. After all, in a normal situation, if the garden is good, it would be planted on all of them if there is a physical separation between the groups.
Just correcting a typo I had before:
Yechoim = cuttings
(in relation to bananas)
Yes, sure, well, what else could he say after he made the mistake? 😀
rival
I know the story 🙂 In a later interview he explains that he was only joking.
Miracles,
Bananas = identity (a banana is female)
There is a funny video on YouTube where you see the creationist presenting the banana as proof of divine design: it is sweet, peels easily, is served straight to the mouth, does not get dirty... then they laugh at it and explain that this banana is actually proof of evolution, not divine design, the banana that we created through evolution does not exist in nature at all ! Nor can it reproduce without the help of man.
Without evolution we wouldn't have bananas today 🙁
rival
A good example! All the bananas we eat are genetically identical.
Miracles,
Thanks, by the way, even the delicious and sweet banana that we developed through evolution cannot reproduce naturally without the help of man (with the help of Yehoim).
rival
We have many mechanisms in the body that remain even though their main function does not exist. The femur of a whale, our appendix, our duck skin and so on. A sign of very bad planning...
No need to replace parts? You are welcome to come visit the hospital where I work, and see how many parts would be replaced if only it were possible... and I'm talking to you about children and babies.
I guess the moon bones in the whale have no more role, but I don't know.
I am not claiming here that there is no "intelligent planner". I argue that the argument cannot be used that life seems planned and therefore there is a planner. On the other hand - we have a mechanism that explains the openings of life, it also has incredible predictive power, and it fits the knowledge we have about other processes. Only a fool or a charlatan would choose "intelligent planner" over evolution.
Maya
A asked why domestication does not harm reproductive capacity. I gave an example that is definitely offensive. This is also true for certain animals such as different breeds of dogs.
anonymous
I didn't understand what you were saying. Am I actually a plant of the atheists? So you will probably also say that Rabbi Kook is like this "there is no need to oppose any revelation that contradicts the simplicity of the Torah, "because it is not an essential rule of the Torah to tell us simple facts and deeds that happened. And in general this is a great rule in the war of opinions, that every opinion that comes to contradict something from the Torah, we should first not necessarily contradict it, but rather build the palace of the Torah above it, and in this we are elevated by it, and because of this elevation the opinions are revealed..." This is what he wrote On evolution not only in general. Of course you won't believe me but you won't check either. And Rabbi Kook is not the only one, there is also Rabbi Gedaliah Nadel, one of the senior students of Chazon Ish, and from the beginning including Chazon Ish also embraces evolution, in the book "In the Torah of Rabbi Gedaliah".
Regarding the development of the plant world, he writes (ibid., p. Tzadza):
"When the plants were created on the third day - there is no reason to think that they were all created at once. There is a succession of species. There are genetic changes, mutations, that create new species, and this is a process that takes a very long time... Instead of talking about "development" we will talk about the progress of creation, from stage to stage, from form to form, by the will of God, working through the angels. Although, this progress is a lengthy process. Any change in nature takes a very long time, in tiny steps. This is how God works."
Regarding the creation of man, he writes as follows (pp. XNUMX-XNUMX):
"The description of the creation of man from dust is in a metaphorical and suggestive way. The Almighty did not take a spoonful of dirt and fill it with water, as the children do in the garden... The creation of man in the image of G-d is the end of a long process, which began with a non-intelligent being, belonging to the category of animals, which gradually progressed because it was given the human mind, and at the same time also the form The human physiology we know... Darwin's evidence, and that of paleontologists, for the existence of such earlier stages, seems convincing. Darwin's mistake is in the general view of things, which avoids the question of how the changes came about. But with the recognition of the divine will working in nature through the angels - we have no need to rule out the description of the events as the scientific investigation presents them... The person about whom it is said "we will be made man in our image" is a final stage of gradual progress." And again your main problem is that you cannot see a seemingly random event as an act of God. Only if the event violates a law of nature or is statistically impossible. However, you are the one who is a disbeliever among us both. I not only believe that God created the world even if science says that this is possible according to the laws of nature (you are the one who sees it as proof that there is no God) even on a daily basis I believe that God runs the world even when things can be explained according to his laws the nature
When did you see that I wrote that I repeated the question at all? Or did I repeat the question because of the horrors of the Jewish religion?
So what if there are people who use religion to justify crimes. (Yigal Amir, the burning of the family in Duma..) Is that why I should repeat the question? Even in the name of evolution, the most terrible crimes in history were committed (also in Germany, England, USA) I have not seen anyone tell a scientist that he should stop being a scientist because of this. (If someone wants, I can expand on crimes in the name of evolution)
Miracles,
"I no longer need a certain function and want to remove one part, but the part is used for other functions. Does that sound familiar? 🙂 )
Actually no, what did you mean?
In any case, if God planned us (and he didn't, for the simple reason that he doesn't exist) maybe his intention was that these parts wouldn't have to be replaced, then there's no problem, right?
So it seems that an organ with several functions has advantages (economical) and disadvantages (the ones you mentioned) by the way, do the degenerated leg bones have another function apart from the issue related to reproduction?
Miracles
I did not understand in the context of why you wrote about the fruit tree and the assemblies.
Maya
If you sow seeds of a fruit tree, most likely you will not get a strong and productive fruit tree. That's why trains are made.
rival
As an engineer, this is bad planning. For managers it is excellent 🙂
In software this is considered almost a crime, and a good designer avoids it.
There are several reasons for this.
I want to replace a certain part with another part, lighter, cheaper, more reliable, more available - but now I need the new part to do two things well.
The part breaks down - now several functions in the system are affected and not just one.
I no longer need a certain function and want to remove one part, but the part is used for other functions. Does that sound familiar? 🙂
א
Regarding your earlier questions:
A. The number of chromosomes will not prevent closely related species from mixing, but it will certainly interfere. The chance of an infertile offspring as a result is quite large. Basically, the number of chromosomes is, seemingly, less important because it is only an arrangement of the information, not the information itself, but the arrangement also has a meaning and it is expressed mainly in the process of creating the gametes called meiosis. I don't know how knowledgeable you are about cell divisions, so if you don't know the concept and/or don't really know how the process works, tell me and I'll explain.
B. I believe that there are species with a common ancestor (we all have one common ancestor or another...) that have the same number of chromosomes and cannot breed, but I don't know of such an example at all. I can tell you that a gorilla and an orangutan, for example, have the same number of chromosomes. What's more, in a quick search I couldn't find if they are able to breed with each other or not. In my opinion, by the way, there is definitely a situation where they can, even if it's only in a test tube (that is, someone outside has thoroughly checked the genes of both of them that can be combined) and on the other hand, in my opinion, in a test tube it is probably also possible to multiply a person with one of them (it seems to me that there are all kinds of rumors Science fiction that they've already done it. Not very believable…)
third. Fred is a great example of the gray in the block to mix. The populations mix but create sterile offspring.
So again, the number of chromosomes is not an insurmountable barrier (and again as an example I can give all kinds of human chromosomal aberrations of people who live with 45 chromosomes, but reproduce with people who have 46 chromosomes and create offspring and offspring that can reproduce on their own, as well as the example with the two species of horses ) but it is definitely limiting and as I said if you would like to understand why it is limiting (which would require a breakdown of the meiosis process) I would be happy to explain.
Regarding your question about why it didn't happen with pets then the answer is exactly what you said: not enough time has passed.
The parable of a rival with the cake was nice. It is, of course, not XNUMX percent accurate, but it is not a bad parable.
A.P.
Design is identified according to several parameters. The most important thing is purpose - what the designer intended to do with the finished product. Pay attention my friend, the purpose is not of the planned, but the planner.
Another parameter - we expect a planned product to be made up of discrete parts, with each part having a unique function, and each function having a unique part.
A final parameter in our lectures - we expect each part to be simple and homogeneous. It should be constructed so that it is easy to manufacture.
A Swiss watch looks designed. Man, absolutely not.
Thanks maya,
I just heard this claim a few times before and wanted to know if it was true. Again, the fact that an organ that degenerates is then used for a different function obviously does not contradict evolution (like the appendix, which is claimed to be useful and used by the immune system, but this does not contradict the fact that it was originally used for cellulose digestion, as it does in vegetarian animals in which it is much larger).
Miracles,
"The femurs are used as part of the reproductive system in many animals. A clear sign of a lack of planning is that there is a certain part that is used for several functions"
That is, the claim that the degenerated leg bones of the whales have a function related to reproduction is a correct claim? Is this also true in terrestrial mammals?
Why is an organ that serves multiple functions evidence of a lack of planning? I would say that on the face of it it actually sounds like smart and economical planning, if one organ can be used for several roles then why not?
rival
The article he brought was published in a newspaper called Evolution which, not surprisingly, is one of the most respected scientific papers on the subject of... evolution. So yes, definitely an article that can be trusted. I haven't read the article, but from reading the abstract in general the question is whether the degeneration of the leg bones that are used in the reproductive organs is different in different breeds and the discovery is that in some breeds these bones are used more and in some less and it depends on mate choice. That is, the sexual selection (the fact that the female does not choose any male to mate with randomly) develops the internal genitalia and this is the new discovery in this article.
rival
The femur is used as a reproductive organ in many animals. A clear sign of lack of planning is that there is a certain part that is used for several functions.
In whales of all kinds, the femurs are connected to the reproductive organs, just like ours have an appendix, duck skin or tail bone.
The document is a document that can be trusted, but it is not exactly the document that a smart evolution denier would bring...
A',
"The problem is that "planning" does not need evidence. He just needs to explain supposed flaws in evolution. This he does perfectly. Even the imperfection like genetic defects is not a problem to explain. Reason simply did not want us to be perfect and it wanted there to be genetic diseases.
I don't agree with this explanation, it seems a bit crooked to me, I think that we definitely need good evidence to determine that something was planned, and this is exactly what the creationists are constantly trying to do, to show us how complex and wonderful our body is so that it is impossible that it was created by itself, and someone He had to plan it.
Of course this is complete nonsense and evolution explains in a simple and wonderful way how complex animals are created, and not only does it explain it is also what all the evidence shows happened.
To the opponent:
"And why is there no evidence (there is no evidence for intelligent planning)"
An identifier is designed according to a dependency between its parts that creates one thing. For example, a written sentence, an engine, a social organization, etc.
The human mind is a vision for the planner.
An example of planned creation is the texts that people write here.
The texts testify to the existence of intelligent planning.
Can it be said that the texts testify to the absence of a creator?
Nature creates texts embodied in living beings that are infinitely more complex, were they created without a planner?
Therefore, for intelligent planning there are countless evidences that only the unintelligent will not see.
-
To Ruthie:
God is not indefinable in any sense.
God lacks a material definition. He is defined as an eternal and infinite spirit. As the one and only truth.
Miracles,
"So I will translate "whales and dolphins, since they evolved from terrestrial mammals, provide a unique opportunity to investigate the hypothesis that stems from the very fact that they lost their hind limbs in this process"
Thanks, although what I was more interested in is whether you really think this is an official (peer reviewed) scientific document that claims the small back bones in the whale's body have a function related to reproduction as Bio claimed.
Of course, even if so, this does not contradict evolution and does not mean that originally they were not used as legs, and after they degenerated the body began to use them for another function (similar to the appendix which is said to be used by the immune system, although originally it had a different function related to cellulose digestion).
To an anonymous commenter
Well what did you think?
A is "religious" who "arrived" to show how he repeats the question because of the horrors of the Jewish religion.
Ruthie
If we treat planning even for a moment as a scientific theory and try to disprove it, it would be like trying to disprove the existence of God with the help of science.
The problem is perhaps because the religious education (I studied in a religious education) constantly emphasizes the perfection of the Torah. And those who come from religious education think that science also claims such a thing. There are also many secularists who misrepresent science in this way. Perhaps rather an emphasis that science does not pretend to know everything in any field, these are just trying to understand and investigate with the assumption that there are such rules. Perhaps this will actually reduce the number of people who fall into the "planning" trap. Precisely from a persistent debate Elol got the impression that science thinks it knows everything. Or like "anonymous" who wrote "scientific theory should not include contradictions whether a higher power exists or not" this is simply not true. In every scientific theory there are things that cannot yet be explained through it. There is always an open question. There will always be work for research scientists.
A.
Planning does need evidence, every engineer asked. If you want I will expand.
The site does not allow entering a sentence in English!!!!
So I will translate "whales and dolphins, since they evolved from terrestrial mammals, provide a unique opportunity to investigate the hypothesis...which stems from the very fact that in this process they lost their hind limbs."
Liar did we say?
rival
The problem is that "planning" does not need evidence. He just needs to explain supposed flaws in evolution. This he does perfectly. Even the imperfection like genetic defects is not a problem to explain. Reason simply didn't want us to be perfect and it wanted there to be genetic diseases. How can you argue with that? In the end even if you expose all their lies there will remain things that science needs to improve the explanation for. Otherwise all the scientists would be looking for another job already. There will always remain questions to be answered. Even every small change in the theory is like proof that the scientists know nothing. The problem is not only that they are sealed. These are also the ones that really cannot compete with such a theory. It will always be easier for her to explain any phenomenon. It is obviously more difficult to think and understand how a stone got a certain shape than to say God wants it to look like this. You can never find fault with the planning theory. Not even with the help of leftover organs. Usually also according to evolution, if a remnant remains, it fulfills some value. The question is why in the end all mammals have the same outlines of a skeleton, let's say, just as if they had a common ancestor? And by chance there is also more genetic similarity than all the other animals? "Planning" has no problem explaining simply that way reason wanted.
a/adversary
Here is what is written in the bio link
A',
"Can you show Bio that the "plan" was written and funded only by religious Christian organizations?"
I would be happy to help, but this is not an area in which I am very knowledgeable, although I have heard this claim quite a few times. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter or matter who started it and who stole from whom.
What matters is what is true, and why there is no evidence (intelligent design has no evidence). You talked about cubes, I want to remind again to everyone who forgot that evolution is not a random process, it is directed by a natural process called natural selection.
Perhaps someone has already pointed it out in the comments, but it is impossible to prove the absence of God by negating events where we have not been able to prove his presence. In the same way that the existence of God cannot be proven from our inability to explain any event. All the more so when we feed the claims from the platform of science, in which the use of faulty logic is prohibited, and in order to act within it, the factors discussed must be defined.
Theologically, in monotheistic religions, the only possible definition for God is that He is indefinable (this God is defined as one whose powers or attributes cannot be measured, which are inherently always beyond our ability to define). Therefore, the question of the existence of that specific, indefinable god cannot be scientifically addressed.
rival
Can you show Bio that the "plan" was written and funded only by religious Christian organizations?
Bio
If you are creationists, this means that you must not interpret the Tanach and must understand it letter by letter. So it is against Jewish foundations and it is not cold. I say this because Rabbi Kook said that the Torah should be interpreted according to what science knows.
anonymous
You probably don't understand what science is. Even in jurisprudence, you don't know everything, and even there you can say that a higher power activates nature and solves all problems. If there is something without an explanation, we continue to look for it, build a theory and test it if necessary, then change it a little or a lot. Many things Darwin does not know how to explain and today it is possible thanks to improvements in the theory. This is the case in every scientific field.
The world is governed by one layer of natural laws, some of which lead to randomness when a dice is thrown and the result is random on its face.
At a deeper level everything is according to God's control and will.
Bio
Do you think that in order to say that God is the one who decides whether it will rain or there will be a drought, a theory about intelligent metrology is needed?
Do you not believe that God determines who will die and when and who will not die. Do you think that when the ceiling in the halls of Versailles collapsed it did not follow established rules of jurisprudence? Do you think she fell intelligently? I hope you answer no to all these questions. I hope you understand that a stone falling according to fixed laws of nature and killing a person does not show that there is no creator or that God does not rule the world. What is it worth if you believe so much that God created the world but do not believe that He runs it. Do you believe that God runs the world? Do you see this as a slap in the face to the fact that the world operates according to the rules of jurisprudence?
If you look at a photograph of the collapse of the ceiling frame by frame you can see that each stone falls exactly according to Newton's equations. The entire list of rabbis, of which Rabbi Kook is only one, did not think it was a slap in the face. If you are slow to understand this so-called conflict you are in big trouble and evolution is really the least of them. We also need to replace the metrological research that claims that weather is according to a "natural process". Also the science of medicine because it says that people die according to a "natural procedure" and according to religion only God decides who dies.
When there is a theory that predicts something and the prediction fails. This means that there is something that needs to be corrected or changed in theory (of course after we have ruled out all the possibilities of error) sometimes it is a small change and sometimes it is a real change from the ground up (really, really rare) in no case do they say there is no explanation so it is God. Although it can always be a perfect solution. (too perfect)
Miracles, Maya.
What do you think about the link he brought?
bio,
"Do you accept the definition I gave? Yes or No?"
No.
Why can't you show us even one human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs? What, there were no humans then? I do not believe.
opponent, take:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25186496
Regarding a fossil that is not in its place - I asked you if you accept the definition I gave. Yes or No?
Bio
you wrote:
"The same with regard to "leg bones in Leviathan". Scientists have discovered that these are not leg bones at all (another unfounded evolutionary claim) but form part of the leviathan's reproductive mechanism."
Here is what Nissim wrote:
"Here is a link that explains the lie (femur of whales) -
http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/dolphin-hind-limbs-response-to-answers.html"
And after you have also continued:
"The femur argument is a known lie. The argument is that bone has a role in the reproductive system. The thing is, this is true for other mammals. This scum knows it, but continues to lie.”
Then you wrote:
"First, let's start with the claim thrown here by Nissim. Those bones do play a part in the function of the leviathan's reproductive system (link in a separate comment above). So it turns out that I neither lied nor shoes."
It turns out that you are deliberately ignoring or not understanding the essence of the lie that Nishim is pointing out.
So now you are first of all invited to try again to understand or not to ignore on purpose (which one of the options are responsible for this omission) and try to address it again or remain silent.
"Am I still a liar?"
Yes, I showed you this earlier when you claimed that religious people are not religious and that non-biologists are biologists. You didn't even repeat yourself, and you will likely continue to claim that these people are biology doctors (who are not religious) and who do not accept evolution or at least cast serious doubt on it, and that there are many of them (I must admit that your definition of many is very interesting), more times here and elsewhere .
______________________________________________
You also said:
"Maya, the chromosomal fusion occurred in humans, so you cannot claim that these are chimpanzee chromosomes. Even if they are the same."
Here are the things Maya said:
"The real answer to your questions is, of course, that we don't really know what happened and we may never know (after all, these are events that took place millions of years ago, where is this time machine that we have been promised for years?) but there are certainly hypotheses.
First of all, there is a lot of excellent evidence that there really was a union of two chimpanzee chromosomes (chromosome 2a and 2b) to create one human chromosome (chromosome 2)."
"In the specific case of the transition from the ancestor of chimpanzees and man to man, where the number of chromosomes decreased by one, there is no reason to assume that initially there were no matings between the mutant individuals and the normal individuals."
So what we're seeing here is that you're just treating a lack of integrity to an inaccurate local wording, in order to produce a presentation as if there is a problem if the claim as it is really defined. (not so so know how to tell you this but it's kind of a lie)
_________________________________
Still waiting to hear from you about the living cell not sensitive to light. where is he? To remind you, your claims against the possibility of the formation of the eye according to evolution cannot be taken seriously without one.
Miracles
You are confusing bio and maybe..(skeptical). Not that I can blame you they use a lot of the same dumb arguments.
bio,
"I also hope that you have now seen that those "remains of legs" are indeed functional. Contrary to what we claimed here due to lack of knowledge.'
Please provide a direct link to an article that claims this and was published in a recognized scientific monthly and has undergone peer review as is customary in science.
bio,
I don't understand, what exactly is the problem with a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs?
Rival, this is not a definition. Is the definition "a fossil that appears before the appearance of its supposed ancestors" acceptable to you? If so, all that remains is to look for whether or not such fossils exist. Then we will see what the real scientific weight of the theory of evolution is.
I also hope that you have now seen that those "remaining legs" are indeed functional. Contrary to what we claimed here due to lack of knowledge.
bio,
A. believes that God established the basic laws of nature after which everything developed naturally, in accordance with these laws.
bio,
A fossil that is out of place is a human fossil that dates back to the time of the dinosaurs. Not a spider, not dubious "dinosaur" murals, a human fossil dating back to 65 million years before our time.
Well, here's the link again:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/whale-pelvic-bones-not-so-vestigial-after-all-140908.htm
Rival, if it wasn't clear - a theory should also offer some kind of findings that would disprove it. A fossil that is out of place for example. But I'm not going to play this game. First, define what a "fossil is out of place" so that later no excuses will come (and in my experience they will).
A- How did you come to the conclusion that intelligent design is a Christian theory? And what about creationism? Is she a Christian too? I showed you why evolution is disproven according to the criteria that the scientists themselves have established. So why do you believe in an unfounded theory? It's not exactly science. And in general, I understood that you hold the opinion that nature developed through a natural process. So why do you even believe in a creator? Just like that?
No:
God is absolute good!
Does not make sense? It is illogical to believe that God is not an absolute good.
God is not absolute good in the eyes of his perverts who deny him.
-
"Intelligent planning is Christian theology"
If intelligent design is theology, then engineering is also theology!
"Why shouldn't a scientific theory include a higher power no matter how hard we have to explain findings"
Because in your opinion there is no logic in existence, and chance explains everything and he is the Almighty God?
A scientific theory should not include contradictions whether a higher power exists or not.
If a higher power resolves the contradictions, then it is necessarily part of a scientific theory, according to its definition as the study of existing truth.
If a scientific theory contains contradictions only to prevent the existence of a higher power, then it is neither a theory nor a science,
But a false, eye-catching and misleading Torah, which has nothing to do with true science.
"That intelligent planning is a Christian theological doctrine that has no place in Judaism" What are you talking about?
Judaism is the source of intelligent design, but reformers decided to rewrite history.
In wisdom, planning and purpose that you see in the order of creation.
If God is not rational, and his actions were not rationally done, then what is?
The Bible as the source of Judaism contains enough content about God's wisdom and planning - read Job or the Psalms.
"Evolution does not slap religion"
Evolution is not contradictory. The theory of evolution is contradictory. God is the opposite of chance.
God is the creator of everything. There is no room for chance in relation to the Creator.
The case is not believed to exist.
God is the direct creator of life, according to what is written in Genesis and according to faith.
Man's consciousness stems from God's spirit, so it is absurd for the believer to believe in material evolution created by man.
-
Are you trying to rewrite and reinvent the faith, uproot it?
A',
I think I already hinted to you before, you have a problem of excess optimism 😀
As far as I am impressed there is no chance in the world that you will be able to convince him, I also recognize his reactions from other forums (Tafoz's forums for example) and from other places, it is simply a wall that is locked on his "truth" and nothing will move him from there.
Regarding "outside the box", on the other hand, I have a little more optimism, even though I think the chances are slim for him as well. But the very fact that he was willing to at least read the book I recommended to him is already a small opening to hope.
By the way, I answered you before about your doubts about the brain and Beethoven's symphonies, I don't know if you read and if I managed to convince you.
Maya
It actually seems to me that Bio can be convinced.
But it does not depend on a logical argument. This will be verified if he understands that intelligent planning is a Christian theological doctrine that has no place in Judaism. And if he understands that evolution does not slap religion. So he will get her. The luck is that many rabbis in the past supported evolution. Once he realizes this, the opposite problem of excess belief in a scientific theory may even become entrenched. And opposition to anyone who, in his opinion, introduces changes in the theory. But enough of the trouble at the time.?
Miracles
Be healthy, when do you get up in the morning? I read your message 7 days ago while making hairstyles for girls under a strict regime of rules. And who even has the time to write messages before getting to the lab, seeing that what we ran at night didn't work again (oh, science...) and drinking the morning coffee?
Bio
Forgive me, but I don't think I have much interest in responding to you anymore. After several correspondences under different nicknames, I already realized that there was no one to talk to and no one to listen (I still remember your replicating robot discussion with poor Camila who really, really tried to make it clear to you why your argument was circular, at a level that a 5-year-old child could already understand and simply did not have Who to talk to, this was the discussion following which I started commenting on the site. He, the innocence). And the whole thing repeating itself to death is already quite boring to me. In any case, when you say things that I think might confuse other readers, I might respond to them, but it seems to me that the nonsense you've said up until now, any reasonable person will know how to ignore, so I give up.
the rest of the people
Comments later today, after we see if the experiment that ran at night really failed completely.
Maya
You will also enjoy the article 🙂
opponent
Bio's arguments are not wrong - they are false!!! I brought a link that explains the lie of the whale. And here is the next lie - fossils in an improbable order. The man is a liar.
A',
I'm not sure if this is a typo.
Yaniv
Come on, you know that's a typo.?
Maybe instead you will help me prove the connection to Christian clergy and organizations.
And so you will help me bring back a kidnapped baby
"A scientific theory should also provide future predictions for findings that the theory is unable to explain"
Funny 🙂 The man is inventing a new kind of science for us. I thought that the predictions of a scientific theory should correspond to what the theory explains.
Oh well.
Bio
I'm glad you're back
I hope you read all the comments here.
I didn't think for a second that you were a Scientologist nor a Christian.
But without noticing I adopted a Christian theological Torah. "Intelligent planning" is a religious doctrine that only tries to appear scientific. And this is just to circumvent the separation of religion and state in the United States. That's why the use of reason instead of God. Rabbis who accepted even parts of evolution did not think that it was necessary to say that it is impossible to explain scientifically. It is related to deep foundations in Judaism that do not see a miracle and providence as something that must violate the laws of nature. Just for example, there is a midrash that says that Moshe hit the bowl and water came out, he actually broke it and the water was there from time immemorial. There are also other midrashim but the message is what is important. God does not have to break the laws of nature for it to be considered his handiwork. Rabbis who do not accept evolution simply do not accept it. Don't create something like a scientific theory.
Do you understand what I'm saying about why a scientific theory shouldn't include a higher power no matter how hard we try to explain findings? You understand that as soon as a theory does do this it is no longer scientific but theological. And the intelligent design is a Christian theology (of a certain stream to be precise) written by religious organizations and financed by religious organizations. These organizations initially tried to introduce Bible study (in a Christian perspective study).
After the court banned it they tried to circumvent the ban.
A',
To your question, in my opinion when the variation between the genes becomes too great (due to the accumulation of mutations) then the couple no longer has the option of creating fertile offspring together.
I don't think the number of chromosomes matters, as long as there is a match in terms of the number of genes and the difference between them is not too great.
Maya, am I right? (contact an expert)
bio,
Again the stupid claim about fossils that are out of place? Set the best example you have!
We are all stressed.
It's still unclear to me
A. What prevents related species from mixing (I'm only talking about species that can't mix) is the number of chromosomes like Niss said before or an accumulation of changes like in the example of the chocolate cake?
B. Is there a case of species with a common ancestor (not to give an example of lettuce and an elephant) that have the same number and yet cannot reproduce? I'm asking about a biological and not a mechanical barrier like maybe size in the case of a very, very small dog.
third. Is the blocking of the possibility of mixing black and white or marble gray?
The change in the number of chromosomes is black and white. It is not possible to have half a different number of chromosomes.
If the reason is chromosomes then it's a sudden change.
I understood the "parable of the cake" the question is whether it is a correct description. If so then it does not belong to the chromosomes.
And here are the links in question - one to the article and one to the scientific article:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/10/status-shift-for-whale-pelvic-bones/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25186496
Well, first, let's start with the claim thrown here by Nissim. Those bones do play a part in the function of the leviathan's reproductive system (link in a separate comment above). So it turns out that I neither lied nor shoes. Oh miracles, am I still a liar? Will you now abandon the theory of evolution?
A- If evolution explains both and then what exactly is scientific here? A scientific theory should also provide future predictions for findings that the theory is unable to explain. Otherwise it is not science. Richard Dawkins for example claimed that one fossil out of place is enough to collapse the theory. But fossils that are out of place have been found again and again. Do you think it made a difference to anyone? Other evolutionists argued that if we found similar genetic segments in distant species that do not exist in related species, this would also disprove evolution. We found that too and no one batted an eyelid.
I'm not a member of Scientology (another made-up story) or a Christian, so I don't know where the above absurd claims come from.
Maya, the chromosomal fusion occurred in humans, so you cannot claim that these are chimpanzee chromosomes. even if they are the same. In addition, I think there is an opinion in the scientific literature according to which it is not fusion at all, but something that only mentions fusion. If you want I will look for a reference.
AP- Chen Chen. Indeed, a whole discussion can be developed on each claim separately. one after one.
A',
Read my analogy with the chocolate cake recipes again, even if the page of one of the two recipes is cut in half into two halves you will still be able to make a delicious cake by randomly mixing the two recipes (each ingredient in the offspring cake and each instruction of what to do at each step will be taken randomly from the complete recipe (recipe 1 ) or from the recipe divided into two parts (recipe 2) you will still get a good cake).
A.
What I am saying is that the same number does not guarantee reproduction, and a different number does not guarantee lack of reproduction.
Miracles
A horse and a donkey really don't get along. The mule is completely barren
(It is true that there were cases, but you can count them.)
If, say, the donkey was created from a father with 64, he would not have the ability to reproduce with his own kind because the offspring would be born barren with 63.
A',
Yes, I think it's a cool video too 🙂
I don't think the ability to write musical symphonies is a survival necessity (although it can impress a potential mate like a peacock's feathers) it's simply a byproduct of a developed brain that helped us survive better than apes with smaller brains 🙂
Nice video?
Laughter at first. A bit heavy at the end.
Of course I do not agree with the conclusions. But I will not go into all this theological discussion.
Let's content ourselves with agreeing that when you want to study nature and understand its laws, you have to behave as if there is no God. Otherwise we will not reach any law of nature.
By the way, human reason is also an interesting question for the planners (interesting but not unsolvable). Is she really an evolutionary need in the brain so much of them? Of course, let's say musical ability can be useful, but is there really a need for someone who can write the seventh symphony? Sometimes it looks a little too elaborate like a new Samsung model, which seems to be enough with the previous model. Certainly when during evolution they were not scientists. 90% of the time the current person is a parasite could not read.
A.
A horse has 64 chromosomes, a donkey 62 - and a mule 63. So it is possible to manage, at least partially, with a different number of chromosomes.
A pineapple has 50 chromosomes, and so does a bosch. A rabbit, a chimpanzee and a potato have 48. So an even number doesn't guarantee anything.
I think the analogy with the cakes explains it quite nicely.
I have already explained why this does not happen in domestic animals, see a page or two back.
A',
Nice I loved it! 😀
I want you to watch a short video, I hope you haven't seen it yet. To activate translation subtitles in Hebrew, click on the subtitles button at the bottom of the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwIACXoFtHQ
First
Everything I wrote in the last message was written with humor and was not intended to offend anyone (except those who believe that God is racist. I have no problem offending him)
rival
So according to what you are saying the inability to reproduce between groups is only related to the accumulation of small changes and not to sudden changes in the number of chromosomes? because. What I understood from miracles.
So the question remains, why hasn't this happened to any domestic animal? Could it be that more time is needed regardless of the number of chromosomes? It is possible to do an experiment on animals with a relatively short life cycle for many years. (like the experiment of domesticating a silver fox that has been conducted for almost 50 years)
But it sounds to me that there is something else going on besides the accumulation of small mutations.
It could also explain the development of two separate branches with no physical separation between them.
Benev
A',
"I didn't understand something. You say that chromosome fusion is not what causes the inability to pair two groups. If so then what does cause?'
It's not me saying, it's what Maya said (she's the expert) and it also makes sense to me and matches what I assumed before.
Here's an analogy that I think is pretty close to what's happening there - look at it as two recipes containing instructions for making a chocolate cake with whipped cream for example.
Both recipes have a list of ingredients and instructions on what to do with them. When you go to make a cake (descendant) you randomly choose whether to take the current ingredient from recipe A or B, and the same goes for the next instruction to be carried out (mix the first ingredient with the third, stir, bake at a temperature of... degrees). As long as the two recipes are similar to each other, you will get a delicious cake, even if occasionally a mutation enters one of the recipes that slightly changes the amount of sugar, or the amount of chocolate, or the baking temperature.
The cake will turn out good even if one of the recipes is cut and written on two halves of a page instead of one page.
But... if one of the two recipes starts after many mutations to become a recipe for something else, for example chicken soup, then now you will no longer be able to make a recipe that is a combination of both because chocolate cake and chicken soup does not sound like such a good combination in the same recipe.
In other words, a split point was created and now we have two separate recipes, one for chocolate cake and the other for making chicken soup.
rival
The continuation of our possible encounter with God at Mount Sinai.
Opponent: But there is no God
A: But I thought you were compassionate and nerdy?
God: Yes, but only for those who put on tefillin every morning! Not like you only once in a…
A?: But it really doesn't make sense to just torture us now. What will it give you? I thought you were smarter.
Rival: There is no God!
God looks down and says?: The truth is I'm not that smart. I wanted to run the world as if it were according to fixed mathematical laws.
A: But why?
God: Because I love math!
A: Me too
Yariv: Yes, mathematics is really interesting
God: I don't care!!!?
Anyway I couldn't find one equation for everything. So I had to work with two separate equations. One for small particles and one for stars.
Rival: So the world did follow laws! oh god
God: Of course not. I just set some rules for myself so that I don't have to decide every time what to do. In any case, I didn't really do well in biology either.
A: Why do you say that? It's really amazing how the body works.
God: True, but I tried to create all the animals to make it look like they evolved from each other. I even buried some big bones in the ground and you called them dinosaurs.
A: So what's the problem?
Some people have noticed that some things don't make sense. I must have made some mistakes? And the funniest thing is that they still called it intelligent planning. Probably on purpose to mock me.
A: I'm sure they meant no harm
Opponent: I actually think that you should torture them in our place.
A: I have to ask. You're not really racist like some religious people say about you?
God: Of course it is! You're a stinking reformer who started it. I am now sending you and your atheist friend to the lowest section.
Rival: He is not my friend. I don't even know his name.
elbentzo clicks on the time machine and we're back.
I go back to believing that God makes sense, that nature has laws, and that God is compassionate and kind and wants the best for people and is certainly not racist. Rival comes back to believe there is no God
end
rival
"Complete split" I mean that individuals from both groups can no longer breed with each other. Especially in humans.
I didn't understand something. You say that chromosome fusion is not what causes the inability to pair two groups. If so then what causes it? It does not matter to the discussion if the two groups separated before the union of the chromosomes, because then they are still not separate from the point of view of mating.
When I thought about what experiments could be done to test the applicability of this theory, I was quite shocked.
But there are still things that are interesting to check. There is a population of white tigers that breed shockingly for money. That is why they are born with many terrible defects. It is interesting to check if some of them have defects in several chromosomes. Even if usually a defect in a number of chromosomes is not caused by a problem in the parent, these are a defect created in the child itself. It seems reasonable to me that certain genes of a parent can increase the chance of such an event.
But perhaps in everyone, a union of chromosomes is created at the beginning in a way that allows reproduction with "normal" individuals, and only after those with the connected chromosomes become common, another mutation occurs in one of them that allows him to reproduce only with those with chromosomes like his own (regardless of whether they have the new mutation) and then This mutation is also spreading. So, of course, both mutations need an advantage, both for connection and for the one that doesn't allow breeding with ordinary people.
Can be. So it is interesting to try to look for this mutation in any animals or to try to repeat the experiment in the laboratory.
But if defects are found that increase the chance of connecting chromosomes, this will eliminate the need for two stages because the chance of two individuals with connected chromosomes is no longer impossible. This reminds me of a well-known logical fallacy in probability. If they say that only 0.1 are gingers and only 0.01 of the car are orange, then what is the chance of seeing a ginger driving an orange car? Instinct says 0.0001. But this is not necessarily true, you must first prove that there is no statistical connection. That is, say gingers don't prefer orange cars, then the chance can be much higher (or lower if they actually tend to hate orange)
A.
It is thought that there really was a time when the human population declined, so maybe your explanation is correct. Read here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427203/
Our two chromosomes connected *after* the split.
A',
The wording in your last messages is a bit confusing and I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, what do you mean when you say "total split", do you mean the split of our ancestor into two branches - humans and chimpanzees?
You might think that the fused chromosome caused this, but that's not what happened. Only after we split into a separate group (from the group that would later develop into chimpanzees) was the connection of the two chromosomes formed, it is not that the connection led to the split, but it was created (by chance) after our split and the chimpanzees from the common ancestor.
I type on the Galaxy. On the left side of the space there is a button. A long press opens several options, one of which is emojis or emotions in Hebrew
Chromosome pairs can't unite at all due to a defect in the parents? There are no genetic defects that can cause it.
Even if the chance of recurrence of the defect is not high,
This makes the prospect entirely possible.
Regarding whether the defect does allow offspring, then how is complete splitting created?
A',
You didn't tell how you make all the icons and faces in the messages, will you find out?
Maya
I think because the process of species separation happened so much. It must have some advantage in itself. And this is despite the fact that it has a clear disadvantage on its face. Because of a small genetic diversity and the reduction of potential partners. If every time he had to have a specific advantage. Along with the fact that the chance of a chromosomal difference is so small. The chance of this remains so small that it requires "prudence"?.
Perhaps precisely difficulties that cause zero genetic diversity that does not allow to get rid of defects but forces to get used to them (in the end the new species is so adapted to them that they are not seen as defects) can be the advantage and an opportunity for evolution to develop something new. and make an evolutionary leap.
A bit like the horns of the male bucks that don't help survive. But forcing them to evolve to be stronger
א
First, there is certainly a chance that it will happen in the same family. that crossing over between chromosomes is not a particularly rare event. The chance is not very high, but it definitely exists. Although, in the context of what you are asking, there is no real reason for the process to occur in the same family, it should occur in the same group. There is also no real reason to assume that within the family the chance of two such events is greater. These events seem, for the most part at least, to be random.
Second, there can definitely be an advantage that compensates for a disadvantage. Sickle cell anemia is an example of this. The mutation that causes sickle cell anemia also causes some protection against malaria, and therefore the mutation is widespread and exists in certain areas of Africa, even though its occurrence in both copies of the DNA is fatal.
Thirdly, in the specific case of the transition from the ancestor of chimpanzees and man to man, where the number of chromosomes decreased by one, there is no reason to assume that initially there were no matings between the mutant individuals and the normal individuals. It is certainly probable that the mutation happened in a small group and since it is a small group it had control over the population (whether it has a relative advantage or not). If the individuals could not mate with the normal individuals, two mutant individuals were indeed needed in the first place, which reduces the chance but does not reduce it to zero. If the two mutant individuals are the ones that created the initial population and it was an isolated population that did not compete with the non-mutant population for resources, it is certainly possible that even if they were inferior to the normal population they could survive. Groups with low genetic diversity have survived throughout history (a good example is the Amish) so this is certainly possible. As the number of individuals in the population increased and as the populations split into different parts of the world, the genetic diversity naturally increased.
rival
But this is not a solution because we are talking about a change that does not allow placing a descendant. If the change in the chromosome does allow the creation of an offspring, then this does not answer the question of how one divides in a way that does not allow an offspring.
About the chance. The question is whether there is a chance that it will happen twice in the family. Sounds to me like this could be a possible chance already.
Of course, even if this happens, the chance of survival is low.
But the second question is whether the difficulty that does not allow the culture with the other individuals can be the advantage if the risk is great. After all, if there is a defective gene that is a problem, if there is genetic diversity, then the gene will eventually disappear. An individual with a defective gene will mate with an individual with normal genes and have offspring if the normal gene is advantageous. But a newly created species does not have this possibility. Everyone has the gene, but an individual who managed to solve the problem in any way would produce more offspring.
Maya,
Okay, I didn't know that, I thought "begat" meant that the offspring came out of our womb.
A',
You must be using some app for the icons, right? What's her name ?
א
What you described could happen, but again, there is no reason for both parents to have the mutation on the chromosome. One parent is enough. And also, in very small populations even mutations that are even slightly negative can take over the population.
rival
This is the definition of holid - "brought an offspring". So the male gives birth because he brings an offspring. The female, who does the act of birth itself, gives birth. So it's not about horses, it's just the definition.
"Then he'll send us both to hell and just hurt us forever pointlessly"
So I will really hate him 🙂
A',
How do you know how to make all these cute faces? Where did you learn that? How do you know which combination of signs creates each face?
Maya,
You're right, I need to improve my Hebrew 🙂 Although it still doesn't seem to me that there is a situation where the male gives birth, at most he can give birth.
(Except for exceptional cases like seahorses where the male actually holds the eggs in his stomach until they hatch)
The more I think about my theory, the more logical it seems to me. So if I said nonsense please bring me the paw now because later it will only hurt more?
rival
Maybe it will be the other way around? You will see the status of Mount Sinai. God will tell you that the world is completely without scientific laws. And he simply hid all the signs of Mount Sinai status. And every time you let go of an object, he is the one who dropped it. Maybe it will turn out that we are wrong (at least I am less wrong. Only in connection with the fact that the world operates according to laws, will I be able to tell God at least I believed in you?) and God will tell you that he actually tested us (like the experiments that mice conducted on humans In the guide to the hitchhiker in the galaxy) I will tell him at least I was a good person. But he will say that he is only interested in if I put on a tefillin. Then he'll send us both to hell and just hurt us forever pointlessly. Could this be too?
rival
Rather the male gives birth and the female gives birth. So you were fine.
"Can give birth to offspring", perhaps it is more correct to say "can create offspring" since only the female can give birth.
A',
The explanation you listed is not so statistically logical, even in a small population, that there will be a male and a female who have exactly the same two chromosomes out of the 24 combined and that both will meet and mate... as Maya explained, a male whose chromosomes have combined can produce offspring without any problem with a female who has the same chromosomes separately, so the problem is solved without having to break the head too much.
Maya
I saw your comment after I sent mine.
The whole question is in cases where it is impossible to put offspring with normal items. After all, the question will still remain in such a case. How did the species split in a way that did not allow reproduction?
But what about what I wrote?
The chance of a chromosomal variation that does not allow reproduction can return identically within the same family in a more possible way? Could it be that the lack of possible genetic diversity will result in an advantage and an opportunity for a new phase of evolution? (Together if the risk of extinction is great, of course) then this could explain how the process repeated itself so many times. And also leads to more diversity.
A',
I started to write you an explanation similar to the one Maya gave, but I deleted it just before sending because I wasn't sure about it and I didn't want to just confuse. But as she also said to me, it seems logical that a sperm that has two united chromosomes can fertilize an egg that contains the same chromosomes in a separate state, as long as there is compatibility between them in terms of genes, it seems logical to me that there should not be a problem.
Oh, what I would give for some time machine, to bring the blind believers back to the past, to prove with their own eyes that there was no Mount Sinai, and that there was no Exodus, and to show them all the stages in which this legend developed.
What I would give to see their reaction and hear what excuses they will come up with to keep believing.
rival
I will try a guess which of course is just a guess and even if it makes sense it must be tested experimentally.
My guess is that in dire situations the population is very small and isolated.
As a result of a low number of individuals and a decrease in genetic diversity, many genetic problems arise, some of which damage the control systems on the chromosomes, thus increasing the chance of the union of chromosomes and also the chance of the meeting of two defective individuals. And the offspring also have a better chance of mating. (Could it be that the chance for two people with 22 isn't so small if it's a brother and a sister? Obviously it doesn't help humans find a partner?)
It may be that the first generations will not even have the advantage and maybe even a flaw. But if the "new" animal survives several generations, the lack of genetic diversity will cause a faster evolution and will be the advantage (mutations do not diminish in a large population, but this is also dangerous and can become extinct) even a defect that causes a disadvantage can lead to the evolution of a new solution that will even surpass the original situation. And in a normal situation there is more chance that the defect will disappear because normal genes "from outside the family" will enter. If there is no option of getting normal genes then there are only three options. Or a mutation that will just return the situation to its original state (probably zero chance) or become extinct (always an option that even happens perhaps most of the times) or find a new solution with the potential to even be better. (In the case of a monkey, it might be to increase the brain, for example)
But again that's just my guess
Albanzo
I didn't understand, but if you also got good answers...
Waiting patiently for the time machine. Now that I know she will arrive I have all the time in the world...
Maya,
I was waiting for you to join the discussion, and I was hoping for good answers (not that I don't appreciate the answers given by some of the commenters so far).
post Scriptum.
One time machine, on its way to you.
A.
Excellent questions! The real answer to your questions is, of course, that we don't really know what happened and we may never know (after all, these are events that happened millions of years ago, where is this time machine that we've been promised for years?) but there are certainly hypotheses.
First of all there is a lot of excellent evidence that there really was a union of two chimpanzee chromosomes (chromosome 2a and 2b) to form one human chromosome (chromosome 2). The main answer to your question is that as long as information does not disappear from the genome (which is what happens in the union of two chromosomes, the number of chromosomes has changed but the amount of information has not changed at all) this individual has no problems, and in addition to the fact that he has no problems, he can mate with other "normal" individuals in the population. How did the genome with 23 chromosomes take over the genome with 24 chromosomes? There is no answer to that. Maybe this situation had some advantage and natural selection was working, maybe the population was small enough and it's simply genetic drift. There is no telling.
What is important to your question is that the "mutant" individuals can mate with normal individuals and produce live and fertile offspring even if not XNUMX percent of the time (the chance of miscarriage and creating a non-viable offspring increases in such a case). Search for "Robertsonian translocation" (I don't want to give a link so as not to block) in order to see that changes in the structure of the chromosomes happen nowadays (about one in a thousand births) and these offspring are usually fertile and normal and are also able to create their own offspring with any individual in the population although, again, The chance of miscarriage does increase. Another example is domesticated horses compared to wild horses which also have a different number of chromosomes, but since this transformation happened a relatively short time ago, they are still able to mate with each other and produce fertile offspring.
Hope this answered your question.
By the way
Because of this basic premise of science, there were those who did not accept the acarias that exist in the quantum theory. But the randomness of the quantum does not slap science because it still works according to clear laws. And that is precisely the point when the scientist encounters a phenomenon in nature, he must assume that there is an explanation and that there is a law that describes it. And I say this as a person who believes in God with complete faith.
The design is a bit reminiscent of alien followers in that if for a moment there is no good explanation for any construction then there is no way to say that aliens have visited the earth.
But maybe it's all good. Because it encourages more scientists to pursue these questions?
It's amazing that people like AP call others irrational 😀
A.P.
Apart from repeating many times the word reason and its inflections you did not renew.
Still the whole story is about "there are things that science cannot explain (apparently) so the only explanation is God, sorry "reason" (sounds more scientific).
No problem if you don't believe in science. But don't present it as a scientific theory. Because it isn't. This is against the premise of science that everything works according to laws. Don't believe it? ok but thanks it's not science.
Without this premise, science would discover nothing.
Miracles
Please respond to my question and not AP's?
AP,
Here is a great definition for people like you:
"They will abandon logic, honesty, sincerity, truth, facts and respect, in favor of believing in vanity, irrationality, lack of logic. Creation believers have no problem with irrationality.'
You definitely proved it in your response.
A',
Your question is definitely in place and I remember that I once read the answer somewhere, you are actually asking how the first human/monkey in whom the two chromosomes were united was able to "by chance" find a female who also had the exact same two chromosomes united, and by chance they both had some advantage that caused this trait to spread in the tribe.
In my opinion, this is a question that should be addressed to a biologist, but I remember that this phenomenon also exists in other animals.
To his heart:
Those who try as hard as they can to be puffed up, to not understand the obvious, who ignore logic, have no choice but to condemn you. Yechanuch by many nicknames. Don't be impressed. Your explanations are correct, helpful and worthy of appreciation.
The "science" of evolution, in my estimation, is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Biochemistry proves that information, organ systems and their properties cannot be created in stages.
The mind for its purposeful complexity (its purpose to exist) and the algorithms that process the information in it are an irrefutable conclusive view, created out of planning.
The theory of evolution which is the explanation for evolution is based on the principle of seeing through the lack of understanding.
The lack of understanding is given the name the theory of evolution (as opposed to evolution itself which is a fact).
That is, for everything they cannot understand how it was created (for example the brain) they stick the word evolution + story.
A story whose examination with biochemical, engineering tools, the development of information proves its absolute nullity.
In order to disguise their method, they use the following methods:
1. Assuming the desired - that is, removing the concept of planning from science.
2. Preferring the absence of a reason as a reason for a reason. The absence of a reason is the inability to conclude from the laws of chemistry, biochemistry, information, that a single cell will develop into a being from which all living beings will develop. In their desired assumption, they assume that the very existence of evolution explains itself and does not need an explanation. In order for this not to be seen as the desired assumption, they invented the theory of evolution which is an explanation without causality, an explanation that could never concretely and specifically explain any of the stages of brain creation, if there were such stages at all. There is nothing wrong with wearing a false Torah that catches the eye.
3. At this stage they will call anyone who opposes their method a liar.
4. In the last stage, new discoveries are hidden from the public that cast great doubt on the theory of evolution.
5. The last fortress - invented fictions and far-fetched explanations that many scientists do not have the courage to expose in public.
What did you say about the intelligent design? that planning is used as an explanation, when the explanation is unknown.
Planning is about something. no he is not Planning is a reason. The theory of evolution is a herd of reason. The difference is essential. Is-mish vs. is-from-nothing.
Environmental conditions, they will say, create everything.
Environmental conditions create environmental conditions. They don't make a cup out of ice and a cup out of stone. They only allow things to exist or not to exist.
The properties of the environment do not create anything other than themselves, because they are part of the properties of everything in the environment, some or all of the properties of the thing are part of the properties of the environment. Therefore there is no need for an environment to explain the formation of a thing, the environment is already included in it.
The environment does not include planned or living things. It is not included in the shape of a stone mug.
The environment does not consist of forces whose shape, size, timing will cause the formation of a stone cup. DNA of a mammal, DNA of a reptile, etc. Information in nerve cells, behavior in cells, control and growth systems and countless features that cells are characterized by are not part of any natural chemical or physical environment. The unique environment they constitute is more complex than all the laws of physics and chemistry just as a computer is composed apart from the laws of physics and chemistry complete information from the field of computer science.
Life has properties that are far beyond the properties of the environment, that we are completely protected from the environment to transform itself into them, such as producing a brain that produces an algorithm for prime numbers.
"Environmental conditions as a source of information" is the biggest lie in the theory of evolution designed to cover blind faith! belief in the creation out of nothing of completely new genes; For example, development control genes or bee flight and flight control genes.
It does not interfere with the cult of evolution. They will abandon logic, honesty, sincerity, truth, facts and respect, in favor of faith in nothing, in irrationality, in the absence of logic. Believers of the theory of evolution have no problem with irrationality.
Planning states that the properties of the thing derive from the whole that precedes them, without which it is impossible for them to exist.!
Science is getting closer to this understanding, but will do its best to deny it.
Is it really fascinating?
It is clear to you that they can say that there are zero chances that the same couples will unite, one male and one female, and that there will be a survival advantage (perhaps this is not required in the first generation) and that the two individuals will meet. And even then they will have a problem of genetic diversity because they will only be able to breed with their siblings.
Maybe there are situations that increase the chance of such a thing? Is there such a case in pets?
That's the beauty of science. One answer brings a hundred questions.
A.
Yes and no. The problem is this. The phenomenon happens when a pair of chromosomes come together. But - to breed such a woman, you need a man with the same pair of chromosomes. I read about a man and a woman with 22 pairs, but it's not the same pairs.
We know that in the past it did work. The common ancestor between us and chimpanzees had 24 pairs. In humans there was a later fusion of chromosomes. We know how to identify two chromosomes in chimpanzees, which are one chromosome for us.
I'm not a biologist. My thesis was a combination of computer science and evolution, in the philosophy of science. Among other things, I showed that because evolution is possible, it must be the reason for the many species that exist today. And this is based on computer science considerations...
A.
Why is gay a curse?
Scientology is a cult founded by a very corrupt man named Ron Hubbard. He established a new "religion" as a tax shelter.
This cult is a terrible and dangerous money extortionist.
Miracles
Now you contribute to the discussion.?
If you're a biologist, it's a shame you didn't take it seriously until now.
Can the people with 22 reproduce with other people with 22?
rival
Sounds reasonable overall.
But don't forget that a royal barra even for a short time is supposed to be "worth" more than her time for a natural nation.
The fact that the ancestor of the rooster is extinct is irrelevant to the question.
In the end what will be most interesting is an experiment. Take an animal with a short life cycle and try to change it enough that it can't breed with its ancestor. Either it will work or it won't. If not we may understand something new.
In any case, it is more conducive to the discussion to be taken seriously even if it is impossible to convince.
Miracles
Is Scientology a curse or a cult?
Because I never heard Bio say anything to that effect. Or I don't understand that it has already become a curse (like gay)
Because I was also once called that on the website and I didn't understand why. Maybe I was just cursed?
A.
You fall into the trap of creationist arguments that come out of the blue. Forgive me for being a bit aggressive here, but I know the subject, and even wrote my thesis on it.
There is no such definition for sex. There is no definition of sex at all 🙂 The concept of sex is an invention of man and is not a concept that exists in nature. If so - many people use the definition that two creatures are members of different species if they cannot reproduce with each other (so how do you define a species of creatures that reproduce asexually?). In plants - we have many cases where the number of chromosomes changes, and there are definitely new species (according to this definition). There are also cases in animals - for example, mice on the island of Madeira.
I will secretly tell you something quite shocking - some people are a different species according to this definition!!! They cannot breed with normal humans because they have a different number of chromosomes. Most of us have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but there are people with 22 pairs, people who are completely healthy, but of a different sex, according to the definition you gave.
So this claim is not true. And if it were true, then would that rule out evolution? Definately not…
A',
First of all this is a beautiful question, I mean you are asking how is it that the animals in our home are still able to reproduce with the ancestor from which they evolved?
So my answer is divided into two:
1. I'm really not sure that this is true for all the animals in our home, for example with which animal in the wild can a chicken breed? Or a cow? Or conquered? I'm not sure there is an animal in the wild that they can breed with.
2. Humans domesticated animals only in the last 10-20 thousand years, this is considered absolutely nothing in terms of evolutionary development time which usually lasts tens of millions of years! Apparently, the animals in our home have not yet had time to change enough to prevent them from being able to reproduce with their "group of ancient ancestors", which is not that ancient after all...
What do you think ?
I accidentally omitted the words "breed with his ancestor"
rival
I was not sure
An animal that evolves from another animal eventually develops the ability to breed with its ancestor. For example a dog can produce offspring together with a wolf. It is possible to pair wheat with the wheat mother. You can't pair a giraffe and an antelope.
That was my intention. If I'm not mistaken, there is a definition of two separate species according to whether they can reproduce with each other and give birth to a fertile offspring (as opposed to a horse and a donkey whose mule is infertile)
This is the claim that so-called Berra cannot completely change an animal. Because no such change has been observed in the laboratory or in a captive animal
A.
Bio is a liar…..
I'm trying to emphasize the matter!! Ask him about the replica car.
A.
You wrote "For example the transition between species there is the question of how, despite thousands of years of intense royal selection, all the plants and animals that were domesticated can at least biologically produce fertile offspring"
That's not exactly true. You are welcome to try growing seedless watermelons from a seed 🙂 But - what does that have to do with the matter? What farmer would develop a strain that cannot reproduce?
Where did this funny idea come from?
What is a liar?
Bio
What surprises me about you is not that you accept religious belief as science. I understand that and I have met many such people. But Christian Torah???
Really, I don't understand how it doesn't bother you as a religious person.
A',
"For example the transition between species there is the question of how, despite thousands of years of intense royal selection, all the plants and animals that were domesticated can at least biologically produce fertile offspring"
I didn't understand, why do you think that an animal that developed through artificial evolution should lose its ability to reproduce? How is it different from another animal that developed in natural evolution?
The whole difference is that in one case nature chooses (who will reproduce and who will not) and in the other case man chooses.
Why would this harm reproductive capacity?
A.
Bio liar - trust me on this one. My father has already blocked him from the site more than once. He is not a religious person, but a Scientology preacher. He is real garbage.
The femur argument is a known lie. The argument is that bone has a role in the reproductive system. The thing is, this is true for other mammals. This scum knows it, but continues to lie.
A.
By the way!!!
Bio
It really doesn't matter if it doesn't go down. As soon as you enter "intelligence" it really is a magic solution and you can explain everything. Evolution also explains imperfection or cumbersome solutions to problems. Even the planner will have no problem explaining because that's how reason wanted it. I don't understand why say wisdom and not God? To whom exactly does this sound more scientific? It is clear that intelligent planning explains everything better. In fact he leaves no question at all. Why do all mammals have a similar skeletal structure? Because that's what God decided. It really doesn't matter if the whale found another use for its leg bones or not.
Why not really solve all science problems this way. It can also be said that the same intelligence causes the universe to accelerate. It explains much better than the theories that exist now and I also said reason and not God. So is it scientific?
Where exactly would humanity end up with such an attitude?
Why are all the "scientists" there related to religion? Why does not a single scientist accept it? Not because she does not explain these things well because she is not scientific.
Just a question of intelligent design is that all animals were created the way they are or did they evolve but God made it happen?
Miracles
Aren't you tired of being told that a liar is a liar all the time.
I really don't think Bio is lying or out of the box. I'm sure they believe what they say.
But I don't think that insults contributed anything to the discussion. What's more, among their things there are real questions about evolution. Some of them have answers and some still don't. For example the transition between species there is the question of how despite thousands of years of intense royal selection all the plants and animals in captivity can at least biologically produce fertile offspring. Or the subject of biochemistry, which is really more complex than anatomy and requires more optimization and more when explaining how it was created. More will contribute to the discussion if you take things seriously even if you don't convince at least the others will learn
Bio
So in your opinion the "legs" of the whale are bones with a role in the reproductive system that did not evolve from legs and in the case the bones are located where all mammals have leg bones? Just out of curiosity, what is the intellectual function of the coccyx in a person that is surely not a degenerate tail?
bio,
"Scientists discovered that these are not leg bones at all (another unfounded evolutionary claim) but form part of the leviathan's reproductive mechanism"
I have a lot to say about the nonsense you wrote, but for starters, just out of curiosity, please provide a link to a scientific study published in a scientific journal and peer-reviewed in which it is claimed that the small bones found inside the leviathan's body are used for reproduction.
Miracles, so according to evolution you admit that those bones have no function since they are degenerated?
A- Evolution does not explain many things that intelligent design explains perfectly. So the opposite approach should definitely be taught if a scientific approach is advocated. Here: you yourself tried to provide two pieces of evidence. Both failed to demonstrate the evolution of a new creature or complex system, which according to evolution has happened hundreds of times without difficulty. If it was so proven, how come not a single scientific proof can be found?
The model of intelligent planning does not talk about the biblical God, it is open to the possibility of any kind of intelligence. Therefore, it is not based on any religious belief, contrary to what you said.
"Where evolution is clear and the mechanism is completely known, he says that there is evolution (between different species) and where there are completely unknown things, "reason" is introduced."-
But speciation is not evolution. Otherwise we could argue that the appearance of a forehead bump is evolution. Since a new variation appeared. But it is clear to both of us that this is not proof of evolution like the transition from a fish to a dog for example.
"Meanwhile, we also ignore data and ignore new research."
Do we have data? After all, I have shown you that what the supporters of evolution have been claiming for years is far-fetched. Does it seem right to you that they ignore scientific research that disproved their prediction? Shouldn't a failed prediction disprove a theory?
"When you present an alternative scientific theory, you can say that the debate is not religious. Until then, evolution is the only accepted theory with all the questions that have yet to be answered."-
I presented you with at least some evidence. You are welcome to refer to them. I'll give them again in case you missed it:
1) Scientific research shows that a number of components are required for the functioning of a biological system. Hence they could not develop gradually.
2) In nature there are clear signs of planning. Hence the rational explanation is preferable to the natural one.
3) Evolution had certain predictions and they failed.
What exactly are you arguing about?
Bio
1) Wow, really why not ignore the lies I showed you that you tell and tell stories to forget* and hide it? Are you aware that there are such people who are not religious and have children?
2) Where is my photosensitive cell?
*Don't worry, we don't forget and know very well what a cheap little liar you are.
A.
Here is a link that explains the lie (femur of whales) -
http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/dolphin-hind-limbs-response-to-answers.html
If you want, I will give you a link to each of his lies (like the evidence for example).
A.
Leave this garbage. He is a wretched liar full of self-confidence.
Bio
Please - take your lies - and go back to your hole. What you said about the whale is well-known creationist nonsense.
Bio
You can find, for example, a declared atheist scientist. According to what you say, relativity should also not be taught. Because she doesn't explain certain things. No one said there are still unsolved puzzles in evolution.
I understand that you are a follower of the "planned model" the problem is if this solution is not scientific, because it includes God. It's a problem not because I don't believe in God, God forbid, it's because every unsolved scientific problem can be solved in this way, for example something that kills some people and doesn't harm others. It is possible instead of investigating the reason to say God wants them to die and these to live. Now as a person of faith I really believe that everyone who is dead or alive is "from heaven". But obviously a scientist should not think that way. If I thought like that I wouldn't be a technology at all. Neither are drugs.
The debate is indeed religious because "intelligent planning" is a non-scientific theory made for religious reasons. If your approach is Christian theology, all the rabbis who accepted evolution saw it as an act of God. Needless to say it cannot be explained by the laws of nature.
"Although the concept of the majority of Jewish thinkers advocating this approach is similar to the idea of intelligent design, this concept has no pretense of being a scientific theory that should replace or inherit the theory of evolution. In contrast to Christianity, the proponents of evolution in Judaism do not consider their concept as a scientific idea, but as a spiritual idea capable of bridging the religious belief in God and providence and the accepted scientific concept."
If science does not investigate according to the scientific axioms it will never reach any useful result. And the scientific axiom says that the world operates according to laws and not according to will. You asked me if I think the process is intelligent. I will ask you, when the ceiling fell in the halls of Versailles did the stone pillars fall intelligently? And yet you believe that God decided who will live and who will die. What the "planning" does is ridiculous. Where evolution is clear and the mechanism is completely known, he says that there is evolution (between different species) and where there are completely unknown things, "reason" is introduced. In between, they also ignore data and ignore new research. It is possible to adopt the approach to any scientific field. dark energy? God. dark matter? God. How did they erect the statues on the Easter Islands? God. Oops, scientists have already found an explanation.
It is possible that another mechanism of evolution besides Barra will be discovered in the future, but it will be a non-"intelligent" scientific mechanism.
When you present an alternative scientific theory you can say that the debate is not religious. Until then, evolution is the only accepted theory with all the questions still to be answered.
Yariv, in the video to which Prof. Richard Dawkins cites as an example of the first step the Jubilana. Jublina has an eyespot that distinguishes between light and dark. It turns out that the eyespot consists of about 200 different proteins. which is about half of what is required for a living cell. That is, even the first step that Dawkins talks about is not statistically much different than a living cell in its entirety. And this is called evolution of the eye? Will you now accept the fact that the eye could not have evolved gradually, or will you continue to believe Dawkins and his ilk? Moreover, the first eye appearing in the fossil record contains about 16,000 lenses. 16,000 times what a modern person has(!).
L.A.: This is indeed a purely scientific debate. Note that I was not talking about religion or a religious argument here. What is the problem with fossils? The planner model can explain them perfectly. The same goes for "leg bones in Leviathan". Scientists have discovered that these are not leg bones at all (another unfounded evolutionary claim) but form part of the leviathan's reproductive mechanism. Note that this is a failed evolutionary prediction. Evolutionists have claimed for years that these are degenerate remains of legs. Now science has discovered that this is not true. Wouldn't it be anti-scientific to continue to believe in evolution after this failed prediction? And this also answers your question about the principle of rebuttal.
Likewise regarding your claim regarding scientific consensus - science does not follow the majority but the evidence in the field. In the past, the scientific consensus believed in many things that today are known for sure to be unfounded.
Woking - according to the above, everyone who is born a Christian will be considered religious in your eyes. So it is not clear to me how you want to find a non-religious scientist who does not accept evolution. It's like asking me to look for a Jewish priest.
Bio
A. I said that I have not met a doctor of religious biology who opposes evolution. There are probably some, but they are rare compared to the doctors and above that are accepted
B. I already said there are still puzzles. So of course a scientist with a religious agenda can come and say "it's all nonsense". OK, does he have an alternative theory that explains all the fossils? Or he simply says God created the whale with leg bones because he felt like it. If you include God in your theory it always solves all the problems. For example "What is the dark energy that causes the universe to accelerate? It must be God! ” Very easy and unflowerable. You probably don't say that because it is clear to you that the world exists according to fixed natural holes, by the way this is an axiom that cannot be proven. Maybe the rules are changing? Maybe like the parable of the chicken who thought there was a law of nature that every time the sun rises they get food until one day they were slaughtered instead.
Maybe there is no law that makes the book fall if you drop it? But you don't think about the past like that. Why? Because it says that God created? But it is also written that God makes it rain and determines that there will be a year of drought. Still I hope you are not against meteorological research. It is clear to you that a scientist who studies the weather has to start from the assumption that "there is no God" not that he really has to be an atheist. But when he tries to find legality he doesn't think where God would like it to rain. I believe that creation is all evolution and the big bang is random and followed fixed laws of nature (which we still don't know to the end but we have a better relative of them than ever before) just like the weather and if it is under complete control and according to God's will. Just like I believe God judges the world on water every year. And that there is no drought or flood except by divine will.
You know what? You don't have to accept the axioms of science (you can also believe that we live in a kind of matrix for the sake of it) but true or not they are the most effective for exploring the world with the help of which they developed technology and improved the standard of living. If we didn't understand this so-called conflict you would never have a weather forecast or a computer.
If one of your scientists has another theory that does not include the word God then I am really wrong about you and the debate is really purely scientific, and then I trust the scientific community that if there is truth in one of the theories sooner or later it will be rejected, as it has always been in the past even if not immediately. To this day I have not heard of such a theory, but you might surprise me.
Bio
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to show me an example of a living cell that is not sensitive to light.
Bio
Richard Sternberg - Roman Catholic is not religious?
Scott Minnich - I have no idea nothing is written about him anywhere
Mike Agnor - Catholic and not a biologist at all
Douglas X - I have no idea what he is, but he receives a salary from the Discovery Institute, which probably means that his main belief is money, not biology
Michael Denton - creationists claim that he is agnostic, he himself does not answer the question, but grew up in a heavy Christian home and at the very least is a deist.
It seems to me that this can be summed up as your failure/lie. Choose what suits you.
Regarding life in space, I'm not really interested in conducting the debate because the claim that life has always existed seems to me to be completely wrong, even though you can find excuses and drag it out like religious people do with things that have no evidence at all.
bio,
"What will convince me of its correctness? If you show me how a creature can gradually develop a complex system with dependencies between its components like the eye or when each step is effective on its own."
here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZZ7WogHxaY
Bio
Aren't you tired?
If not from repeating lies, then at least from inventing a new nickname every few months?
In which we will try to shorten the discussion:
Is there any evidence that will convince you of the truth of the theory of evolution?
Ahhh, the brainwashed Jehovah believers must push their evidence-less ideology into every scientific paper. Understand, evolution is a fact. Start getting educated instead of closing your brain to the truth.
A- As I thought, there is no evidence of evolution here. What the researchers did was to inhibit the activity of the gene known as "Indian hedgehog" (a gene associated with genetic control and embryonic differentiation). As a result of this delay, the tibia lengthened. that's it. A total variation and play of an existing feature. And this is an intelligent factor.
That's it, this is the most impressive evidence for evolution? What will convince me of its correctness? If you show me how a creature can gradually develop a complex system with dependencies between its components (like the eye or whale sonar, for example), when each step is effective on its own - for me, this would be impressive evidence that creatures can indeed share a common ancestor. Needless to say, no one ever did.
Regarding your second claim - there are actually many biology doctors (who are not religious) who do not accept evolution or at least cast serious doubt on it (especially abroad). Names of some of them: Richard Sternberg, Scott Minich, Mike Agnor, Douglas X, Michael Denton (who published two books on the subject and became bestsellers) and many more. So there is no shortage of biologists who oppose evolution for non-religious reasons.
Woking, if life came from space what does that matter to you? After all, the big bang shows that there was a beginning to the universe. And if there was a beginning, then the opponent's claim falls.
walking dead
First of all, thank you. I really didn't know how to write a contradiction.
I'm really not the only one on this issue. The rest just make a lot more noise.
An overwhelming majority of religious biologists would admit that evolution is true. In fact, I have yet to meet a single biology doctor who does not accept evolution.
A.
Your comments on this site bring a very refreshing perspective of a person of faith in relation to the standard of those who come here to protest every piece of scientific information that they see as contradicting what they consider to be holy words. So thanks for that. You restore my faith in humanity.
To settle the matter for you, the answer to the question of what is the correct spelling - soter or soter - is soter and its derivatives 🙂
Bio
1) You are wrong about your claim that the evidence on the ground shows differently than an opponent's claim that life has always existed. If an opponent claims that life came to the earth from the space where it always existed, you have no way to contradict it.
2) Your claim that supposedly thanks to advances in the field of biochemistry today we know that there is much evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution is a cheap lie. There is no such evidence. There are only logically failed and erroneous claims of religious "scientists".
http://m.ynet.co.il/Articles/4779196
But I know you will twist everything and explain why it doesn't prove because you still think it contradicts religion. Science is not a court. You can rant endlessly that the evidence is circumstantial. But let's bring the question back to you. What evidence will convince you that all animals have a common ancestor? Moss for the purpose of the discussion the first cell that science still does not know how it was created.
Shhhhhh…. Don't tell anyone 😀
rival
So you disbelieve in a bang??
Rival, so you claim that life has always existed? excellent. It's just a shame that the evidence on the ground shows otherwise.
not great. Let's leave religion aside and focus on science. Let's say for a moment that evolution does not contradict religion. If I present you with contradictory evidence for evolution, will you accept it?
You said: "Like, for example, the activation of certain genes in a chicken causes the characteristics of reptiles (structure of legs or structure of the mouth)"-
Can you give a specific example so we can test it?
I agree with Ethan.
bio,
I claim that the first and complex bacterium (hundreds of genes!) from which all other animals on earth began to develop - has always existed.
Is there any problem with this?
So we all agree that snowflakes are designed?
Bio
You know what if you say you don't think evolution is against religion, your claims that evolution is wrong can be listened to seriously. But if not (although there is no justification for it) there is no point in checking the claims at all. Just as there is no point in trying to convince an opponent that there is a God.
Bio
I don't believe you that you oppose evolution not for a religious reason. I have yet to hear of a biologist who opposes evolution for non-religious reasons or who presented an alternative scientific theory. This does not mean that there are no more open questions. There is a lot of evidence for development between different species, such as for example the activation of certain genes in the chicken causes the characteristics of reptiles (structure of legs or structure of the mouth) this clearly shows that birds originated from reptiles, we are not talking about gene transplantation but about genes of the chicken that are not expressed.
How beautiful that no matter what the rabbi says, you can change his words as much as you want. Rabbi Kook wrote explicitly that evolution does not contradict the Torah. But asks not to turn evolution into religious piety. If he wanted to limit his words to only small changes between varieties you don't think he could have written it.
Why are you asking me how it doesn't contradict. In any case, you won't accept my explanation because I'm not a rabbi. If you want, read Rabbi Kook's book. Rabbi Kook was not a biologist and did not examine the theory from a scientific point of view, he only examined whether it contradicted religion and he determined unequivocally that it did not.
You will know k
rival
Note that "bio" has been removed from this site several times. He is a piece of trash and a lousy liar. You'll find out pretty quickly.
bio,
Are you really comparing the simple and anemic round shape of the moon to the complex and special shape of the snowflake in the picture? come on.
bio,
To me the flake seems complex enough.
Bio
You wrote "Today we know that there is much evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution."
Either bring one such piece of evidence or admit that you are a wretched liar as you were in your previous names.
Point, I think it's because they put a tefillin on him first.
To A - After all, Rabbi Kook himself admitted that there are "falsehoods and imaginations" in it. That is, he did not necessarily receive it, but only parts of it. It is almost certain that he meant speciation - the process of differentiating new species, it is indeed something that has evidence. But this is not evolution at the level of the development of new families or complex mechanisms. That is, there is no development of a new creature here, but a variation of an existing family (like the species of dogs, for example).
Either way, Rabbi Kook wrote this while the field of biochemistry was in its infancy. Today we know that there is much evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. I am sure that if Rabbi Kook was aware of that evidence today, he would have dismissed her. You will also need to explain how evolution fits with what the Bible says. Either way, the discussion here is purely scientific. I'm also not clear if you believe in natural or intelligent evolution. If you believe in natural evolution, then in your opinion nature does not require a planner.
Rival, what is so complex in a snowflake? Its symmetry? The moon also looks symmetrical. Does this prove planning? It seems to me that even the devout creationists would disagree.
The mechanisms of life, on the other hand, currently have no other than rational explanation, so the burden of proof here is on the proponents of evolution.
Rival, sometimes there is also a Jewish snowflake. respect!
http://northshorekid.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post_photo/events/snowflake_shapes_and_science_0.jpg
"A snowflake is not complex"?
Are you serious? Have you ever looked at a snowflake?
http://www.snowcrystals.com/photos/i0118a097c1a.jpg
"A snowflake is not complex, as it can develop through a natural process."
So the definition of complex suddenly became whether it can develop through a natural process or not? And we will use this definition to show that evolution is not possible? And we decide that evolution is not possible naturally because we feel like it?
Do you happen to have a more successful assumption argument?
"Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything"
his heart
You do touch on an interesting point. Science does not know exactly how the first life was created and there are still puzzles about some stages of development. This does not mean that all the evidence that science has gathered does not necessarily lead to the development of all creations from a single parent. Over time, more and more explanations are discovered and the number of open questions is small. Regarding the first cell, there is no doubt that science has the most work to do there, and it may be years before it is possible to answer this question, and perhaps even repeat the process in the laboratory. Until then you can believe that the first life was miraculously created by God. I personally believe that God created the first life with the help of the laws of nature that he himself determined, so God also created man. By causing him to evolve from the animals.
But I find it hard to believe that what makes you not accept evolution is the scientific difficulties in it and not religious belief. And the question is why? You know that Rabbi Kook said that it does not contradict the Torah and you even brought his tzitzit yourself. So why do you think it does contradict? You don't extend Rabbi Kook? Do you think you know more than him?
The theory of relativity also has phenomena that it cannot explain, such as the source of dark energy. So what? Does that mean she's a jerk? Either we will be able to explain the phenomenon in the future with the help of this theory or it will turn out that relativity is only an approximation of the truth (but it must be a really good approximation) like Newton's equations turned out to be an approximation. It is unlikely that any finding will show that creatures do not evolve from each other or that the world has existed for less than 6000 years. You have no choice but to admit that the first chapters of Genesis cannot be understood simply.
Rival, regarding 1- a snowflake is not complex, as it can develop through a natural process. In contrast, there is no proven natural process that creates living cells.
Regarding 2- similar studies were done regarding a minimal living cell. So even if you start from a replicating molecule, you will eventually have to reach a living cell. But for a living cell to exist, many genes are needed. And so the jump from a replicating molecule to a living cell cannot happen gradually.
Regarding 3- if he has always existed this solves the problem.
bio,
1. Many examples such as the formation of complex snowflakes or the spontaneous formation of crystals contradict your claim that complexity cannot occur naturally.
2. The article published here talks about a bacterium that from the very beginning was much, much, much more complex than the first living cell created on Earth (or on a comet that brought it here). No sane biologist claims that the first replicating molecule from which evolution began was as complex as the bacteria that exist today.
3. As always, you will not avoid the all-important question - if a small bacterium could not be created by itself, then how could a God with so many abilities who created that bacterium, create by itself?
Bio
Just because you claim something is fact doesn't make it fact.
try again
Rival, I will give you one argument against evolution (more correctly against the claim that a natural process created the diversity of flora and fauna). The claim is based on the fact that the complexity of flora and fauna cannot develop through a natural process. A good example of this is the article published here today regarding a basic artificial genome. The genome is required for several hundred genes. Which means that even at the basic level, scientific research supports the claim that such complexity cannot develop gradually. And this is true not only for the first cell but for every system in the living world.
Yes, you can say that I have little faith 🙂
rival
Little faith like you?
Believe me, I also have experience, maybe you didn't come with the right approach?
outside the box
If in all this you are with us
I suggest you maybe re-read the book that Riv recommended to you. But now in a more relaxed way. You may still have questions or bewilderment about evolution, but now you will be able to think about it from a clean place without thinking that it offends religion. Evolution is a fact like the structure of the solar system. That is, we know for sure that all the planets revolve around the sun and we have a really good theory of the source of the force that attracts the stars and how it works. This theory is at least a description very, very close to the truth, but it may change, (it may not be the curvature of the space that causes it). So with evolution, it's animal oils evolving from ancient animals, it's certainly about the full mechanism we have a really good theory that must be at least a really good approximation. But there can be changes (such as new epigenetic mechanisms), and there are also open questions such as how the first life was created (this also does not contradict the Torah. Because it does not mean that the first life was not created in God's "article" even if they find the explanation to speak in a natural way.)
I too sometimes have things that I don't understand or think can be interpreted differently in the studies, (you can read my comments in the article on dog domestication) but I make sure to remember that I don't have a doctorate in any of these fields and I could be completely wrong.
A',
I think you have too high expectations. If you think he will say "You are right, I was wrong. I studied the subject and realized that evolution is really true', I don't think it will happen. I already have experience with believers of his kind.
But I'm glad he at least agreed to read the book, that's already progress.
rival
You think we'll get an answer from outside the box
Or will we have to wait for the next article on evolution?
(Yelkot Reuveni on Parshat Noah)
Message pending... I found the source, not a membrane but fingers close together and connected to each other, and it's not written in the Torah either, it's just an interpretation.
A',
I did want to see the source, understand where this nonsense came from. I found some kind of source, and even there they don't talk about a membrane but about the fact that the fingers of their hands were joined, and it's not written in the Torah either, just an interpretation.
From Reuben's satchel:
"And he called his name Noah, saying, 'This one will comfort us from our work and irritates our hands, etc., until Noah was born, those who were born from them had pious hands that were whole without separating and splitting fingers, because they did not have to work the land, and Noah was born with fingers cut off, from this he understood that it would be necessary for this to work land. This is comforted by Mezaron, etc., and my mother, in Kadmeita Hoi Terpin in Calvary until Dati Nah, Daihu Shabbat, and in it they all rested, and in it I will settle down and I will bring Lon to the dead. Blessed are you at your coming, that you receive blessings in the world like Noah, when it is said that we will be comforted, like Solomon, when it is said that there will be peace... (Genesis)"
A',
You're right, it's a shame to waste the discussion on this, besides what does he think, that he will show us a few verses from the Torah and suddenly we will accept the theory of evolution?! We believe sons of faith we are 😀
rival
You wrote "I would love to see the verses" so I thought you were asking about the sources regarding the membranes.?
In any case, it would be a shame if the whole discussion went to waste.
Just when out of the box changes the approach a bit?
Out of the box.
Since when did man or an ancient descendant of man have webbing between his fingers?
The religious amaze me every time anew...it's amazing how the human mind finds imaginary explanations in front of scientific facts that are presented before it. And all thanks to the imaginary friend in the sky..
A',
"But why do you ask?"
Why am I asking what? I just said that even if it is written in the Torah that the ancient humans had membranes between their fingers, this does not correspond to evolution, according to evolution, the ancient humans did not have membranes between their fingers, they were not marine animals.
A.
In Yuval Noah Harari's books there is a good explanation of the benefits that religion provided to civilization.
Rival, you're probably right, it's Noah. I really remember that he built the plow. But I don't remember if it is a midrash or if there is such a verse. The section of the crust is certainly not in the verses.
But why do you ask?
outside the box
I won't use that as an argument. It just shows that you don't understand me. I don't want to prove to you from the Torah that evolution is true and neither is Rabbi Kook. All I said was that she was not contradicting herself. If it is really true, then it has many things in it that correspond to the Secret Torah (this is what Rabbi Kook said no. I, I do not pretend to know or understand the Secret Torah)
Can you live with a situation where you don't know how to ensure everything with 100% accuracy? Not about how the world works (any scientist will tell you that there are many more hidden things) and also about the Torah and how it should be interpreted and all the secrets therein.
A',
I understood, he was probably talking about Noah, the letters are close on the keyboard and he got confused. I would love to see the verses, and in any case, according to evolution, humans never had webbing between their fingers.
outside the box
Am I supposed to accept this as a positive answer? Is there any change in approach?
rival
Don't ruin the moment?
outside the box
It is not necessary to find proofs from the Torah, it is enough to find adaptations. That is, to see where it fits the Torah. After all, evolution is really a theory and it can change. One should not be like the Catholics who once declared an accepted scientific theory as religious truth and then had to oppose change in science. (That's why they almost burned Galileo. Because they declared everything that Hristo said to be true and Galileo slapped him)
Since Rabbi Kook there have been many developments and changes in the theory and there will probably be in the future as well. But the basis of the idea of the development of the animals from one another remains.
Out of the box,
Is it really you or an imposter?
You wrote very strange things, I would appreciate it if you could expand:
1. So now you suddenly say that the Torah does support evolution? I don't understand you anymore.
2. "Did you know that before Monday was born..."
who will ??
3. "Humans had a membrane between their fingers and he was born without a membrane. And thanks to this he was the first to build the plow"
Could you please quote the exact verses that say this?
No'
I'll give you and all the supporters of evolution some evolutionary meat to eat and live with from the Torah itself. I'm really surprised that you don't use it as conclusive proof for your claims. ..seemingly of course... did you know that before Shani was born according to the Torah, humans had membranes between their fingers and he was born without a membrane. And thanks to this he was the first to build the plow
outside the box
Do you really have any change in your approach to evolution?
?
"And in general we don't need to be so strict about the development method. There are certainly some glimmers of truth in it, but just as many lies and imaginations."
I really agree with him. It is forbidden to take a scientific theory and declare it the religious truth. Scientific theories must be constantly re-examined.
I did not say that Rabbi Kook said that there was evolution, only that he said that evolution does not disparage religion.
his heart
Actually many atheist scientists opposed the big bang because it sounded religious to them and it was more convenient for them to think of a static universe than one that was created at a certain moment. But you see all scientists accepted the theory when presented with enough evidence.
rival
Leave Bio - he is a troll who always starts over. Wait for the replicating car…..
It is not exactly the sharpest pencil in the pencil.
bio,
Just because I'm curious, give me your two strongest rebuttals to evolution.
A.
I don't know what we are talking about. What does it matter until when there will be religions and how did the religions start?
Out of the box.
You are quite an inventor 🙂 Where did I say that life started randomly?
Bio
I hope that is clearer than my response.
I am not a biologist and I am sure that the theory of evolution will undergo many changes. I am sure that if there is new evidence even if at first it is received with skepticism and even if even the scientists are ridiculed at first, in the end most of the scientific community will accept it if they are really right. But every accepted scientific theory was always a more accurate description of reality than the one that preceded it, even if it was replaced by another.
You will be surprised, but what scientists do in their free time is to look for flaws in the accepted theories.
By the way, even if you find flaws in the theory, you usually manage to settle the problem with a small change in the theory, and it is rare that you actually create a new one.
The problem with the criticism of evolution is that it is irrelevant and only stems from a worldview.
outside the box
A. I wasn't hurt at all, certainly not personally. I just said that you write disrespectfully to people that if you are truly religious I would expect you to respect.
B. For me, the discussion was about evolution. My personal faith or observance of my commandments is not relevant to the discussion. For that matter I could be a reformed Buddhist who believes in four gods and the spaghetti monster.
The discussion is whether evolution is contrary to faith, an opponent can also be a participant in the discussion (it seems to me that he agrees with you). But they brought you clear evidence that it is not a soter and opinions of important rabbis that support it.
If after you realize that evolution doesn't contradict religion you still won't accept it scientifically, that's fine. I didn't say that evolution stems from religion (I said that Rabbi Kook said that it fits the secret teachings) or that as a religious person you have to believe in it. However, to the extent that from a scientific point of view you think it is incorrect, remember that you are a. not a biologist b. Even a scientist who has an alternative theory knows how to respect the accepted theory, for example you will not hear someone who works on an alternative string theory for relativity say that you should immediately stop teaching Einstein's relativity.
I said centuries because it sounds pretentious to me to say about something forever. But I really don't think religions will ever die out.
Miracles
It really doesn't matter if there is a God or not. Belief in God must have a huge survival advantage if man has invested so much resources in it over hundreds of thousands of years. I have not yet heard of a good explanation of the subject. Of course, this does not mean that something that is an evolutionary advantage cannot lead to survival failure in a certain situation. The same complex emotional mechanism that helps a person to survive can cause not to commit suicide (which has no survival advantage).
Because the tendency to believe is in my opinion more deeply rooted and meets more important needs than the theories you present, I don't think religions will disappear, certainly not beliefs.
Even people who define themselves as atheists end up adopting irrational "rituals" in my opinion from the same natural source. Maybe in a certain sense really every person believes.
A. and an opponent. Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong and evolution is actually wrong? If so, what finding will change your mind?
Rival, if I show you that many of the claims made in Coyne's book are scientifically unfounded, will you change your mind about them?
Regarding Rabbi Kook and the belief in evolution - here is what he says about it (from Wiki):
"And in general we don't need to be so strict about the development method. There are certainly some glimmers of truth in it, but just as many lies and imaginations."
So it's not black and white.
Out of the box,
It is clear that in the end things are related to each other and the big bang is one step on the way to the beginning of evolution, but like when you want to find out with your friend what he did yesterday you don't start asking him about how he was born and how long his mother was pregnant with him, so when you talk about Evolution There is no need to go that far and talk about the big bang, or how the first living cell was created.
When talking to you about evolution the only question is whether you agree that a group of animals can evolve and become a different species, or can split into several separate species. It's a yes or no question, there's no need to go all the way back to the big bang.
I'm glad that you read the book in a thorough and critical way, it's just a shame that you don't apply the same level of criticism towards your own beliefs.
rival
I talked about the big bang because in my opinion the theories are connected in one long process. Ultimately leading to the formation of life on our planet.. Maybe I didn't understand correctly, but every detail in the process affects the result that will follow. In Judaism it is called a reason and a motive.
That's why I asked if it all started randomly.. To my delight life also started randomly first according to what Nissim wrote. And from there he for some reason switched to randomly talking to dead cats.. not that I care. But maybe you should go for a test.
now seriously
Regarding evolution, let me finish the book in depth on why evolution is true.
Believe me, if you look at a photo of the book, almost every five lines have notes that I write on the sides of the page. Of course, as you continue reading, some of them are no longer relevant..and some are more relevant than at the beginning.
A.
at
In your response to miracles. When you said that the religions will continue for a long time.. we'll see. To me you meant hundreds of years.
A. Do you also think that they will rejoice at some point?
B. When you make such an opinion. Do you also relate to what the Rambam writes in the Acts of the Kings, chapter XNUMX, end of Halachah XNUMX, regarding the other religions that they should know that ""their fathers lied" that is, that all of them will follow the religion of Israel.
C. Do you even believe in Maimonides... I mean as a religious person?
d. Do you believe in the tenets of faith? You must have said in yeshiva every day.. I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah.
A,
If you were so hurt.. I was probably right..
I didn't say you were a reformer. Just keeps the mitzvah. At your convenience... I also added that I might be wrong... but according to your response. seen. Over time, since the yeshiva you studied at, some changes have been made in your worship of God. Based on this assumption I do indeed sincerely hope I am wrong.
What if you are wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3GNa54Bnk8
Out of the box,
1. Why did you suddenly start talking about the big bang, how is it related? The question was whether evolution is true, and whether, as it claims, we and other animals have evolved from each other over millions of years. Why do you insist that it is not, even though all the evidence shows that it is?
2. I asked you before and you ignored it, do you take into account the possibility that you are wrong? That you were told something that is not true, and has no relation to reality?
Miracles
I really didn't ask you to believe in God.
You deny the reality that religions are going to remain for hundreds of years if not forever (believe me, I too would like many of the religions to disappear, so what) the religions will be more moral and more developed.
Even if there is an increase in atheists, it does not seem that the religions are going to disappear. In any case, this has nothing to do with debating whether there is a God.
I think the extension for people to stop believing is misguided. I also think your theory of why there are religions is wrong as well.
outside the box.
You can belittle me personally as much as you want and even call me a reformer (I'm not)
But don't say I don't understand religion. And don't call a yeshiva leader stupid without knowing who he is.
I think your faith is so shaky that you fear it will all collapse if it even just turns out that the world has existed for more than 6000 years.
All bills were once written according to the year of the king and it is not written in the Gemara that it should be written according to the creation of the world, nor did they find a document there from the Second Temple even dated according to the creation of the world. It is possible that at a later time the sages determined that everyone would be dated according to what is written in the Midrash in the Gemara on the creation of the world in order to create uniformity.
Out of the box.
You are not smart.
Bye
Miracles
I also read what you write. So you talk to the dead…
Regarding the faith, it is known from Israel that the sons of believers believe.. so it is rooted and embedded above reason and knowledge.. Oh, I already wrote it
outside the box
You are so rude you don't even know who you called stupid. Regardless of how I fulfill the mitzvot. You throw out slogans like "no Bible comes out..." without understanding them. According to how you understand the sentence, half of all the interpreters of the case should be deleted. I always respect another person's faith but your lack of respect for great rabbis is appalling. If you want you can open the book and read. You don't have to read the whole book. What will you say after that? Do you also have to read all of Rabbi Kook's books to be sure? We must not understand him? What will be the next excuse? How do you pretend to say that you are the one who understands exactly the act of creation and how it happened. Do you understand exactly what the meaning of "And there was an evening" before the sun was created? A little modesty won't hurt you.
I have met so many rabbis who accept the big bang or evolution, but you must be smarter than all of them, even Rabbi Kook, or you are the only one who understands what he is saying (I am sure that after you read his book, if you read at all, you will find a way to distort his words)
Rival, I must have been wrong. ?
Out of the box.
I'll correct myself - I've had more useful conversations with a dead cat….
You wrote "From this one can perhaps conclude... that faith is something that is rooted in a person already when he is a baby.
That is, it is rooted. And over time the frustration and logic embedded in a person hides the same root trait"
I think you are right!!! The belief in nonsense is indeed rooted. And when a person develops and learns about the world, he realizes that it's just nonsense. Do you sometimes read what you write??
Miracles
Was the cat you talked to in a box?
Was he alive or dead?
Does it belong to the uncertainty principle.
If so you also agree that a laboratory experiment depends on the human influence on the experiment.
That is, the person's opinion can be the result of the experiment.
It may be that you and I think differently about the same phenomenon and see it differently.
And regarding the three-year-old, your answer was sneaky. From what you said before, it is clear that children believe this nonsense.
From this we can perhaps conclude... that faith is something that is rooted in a person already when he is a baby.
That is, it is rooted. And over time the frustration and logic embedded in a person hides the same root trait
Can someone explain to me why the Chabadnik talks about the big bang when he even claims that it never happened but was only created to make it look like it happened?
A.
You want me to believe in God because most people believe in God?
To remind you, most people are not that smart (I'm not saying religious people are less smart, but look at most of the world and you'll see how right I am).
What reality did I deny? I suggest you check what is happening in the world, and not take Israel's situation as representative. Read, for example, about the high correlation between education and religion, or between income and religion, or between IQ and religion.
In my personal opinion, there is a deep contradiction between evolution and religion. In my understanding, every religion gives a special status to a person. And according to evolution we live like animals. You can accept part of evolution, or part of the big bang, and believe there is a higher power. I see no way to accept science in its entirety and remain a religious person.
A.
You are welcome to update:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
A.
There is no extraordinary Bible.
Also, apparently his honor is far from the Jewish Halacha.
A simple example is the inscription that is written .. perhaps it is known to his honor that every detail of the inscription must be exact when writing the Hebrew date of the inscription. There is no date of millions of years since the creation of the world. This already indicates a significant inaccuracy.
Also, the Sabbath is once every seven days numbered according to the days of the week.. It depends on the way the world was created.. This halacha loses all calculation and does not belong to any calculation regarding it in the case that it is millions of years.. and
In addition, a person who believes that the Torah is truly true, every letter and even the shape of a letter is significant from a halachic point of view all the more. A complete story of creation.
Ignoring such a situation ultimately leads to ignoring the location of Tara and Mitzvot. Because it follows that the Torah is just an imaginary story as claimed here.
It turns out that there is no difference between Genesis and Noah. and the story of the ancestors. more and more
ך
Now regarding Rabbi Kook I said that you should read the whole book thoroughly and see if anything came out of its context.
As for your rabbi in yeshiva, he was probably a fool. The result is that you probably observe mitzvot however you like. In any case, this is what I understood.. maybe I'm wrong
Miracles
A. Any explanation to the out-of-box about evolution before he understands that there is a possibility that evolution does not necessarily conflict with religion, will be a waste of time.
B. You can deny reality as much as you want, just like outside the box or read the reports of the Bureau of Statistics. Even where the church weakens it does not necessarily mean that people have stopped being believers or religious. It could be that their faith is more developed and they less need the approval/intercession of the church. For 200 years people like you have been saying that religions will disappear. The religions have indeed undergone a change, but show no sign of disappearing in the places where the religions weakened the most during the New Age. Humans have believed in a higher power of whatever it may be for hundreds of thousands of years. Your theories of why the religions were created and why we no longer need them, are simplistic and do not stand up to any test of reality. Every time the religion weakens you all think that it disappears until suddenly it jumps back. The needs that religion fulfills for a person are much deeper than understanding one or another natural phenomenon.
Out of the box.
Are you making a fool of yourself, or are you really?
When you ask a three-year-old a question - he will always have an answer. Every time I explain to you that you are wrong, you always look for how you are right.
What are you doing here besides talking nonsense? Really, it's getting ridiculous. I've had more meaningful conversations with cats…..
outside the box.
I'm really disappointed in you. You probably really have a habit of bending facts that don't fit your way of thinking instead of at least considering a change in your way of thinking. They brought you explicit eavesdropping from Rabbi Kook, not even a quote that a rival brought these Rabbis quoted him. And you start with a conspiracy that the quote is wrong. If you are serious there is a source there and you can open and read for yourself. Of course, if you insist, you can always distort and interpret his words to death. Rabbi Kook said very explicitly that evolution does not contradict the faith/the Torah and he even saw it as compatible with the Secret Torah (which, if all due respect to you, he understood much better than you). I think your faith is the one that is not developed if you fail to see the creation that takes millions of years of creation "in the article".
Maybe you also don't consider it a miracle if something happens without breaking the laws of nature? Precisely because evolution is random, it can be seen as providential. You are actually not so different from the one who created the video about the Exodus, because you also ignore interpretations that exist in part in the Secret Torah. Or maybe you think you know more Kabbalah than Rabbi Kook.
I'm really not one who doesn't cherish Judaism. I studied in a high school yeshiva for 6 years. And the head of the yeshiva himself said that there is no slap between evolution and religion and vice versa, although those who want to can see it as proof that there is no God, but those who believe can actually see the proof of God's deliberate hand precisely because of the randomness. If the conditions during evolution were different, it is possible that an intelligent person would not have been created at all. Maybe you also know more before the meeting. Or say I misunderstood him.
The response is intended for outsiders or believers who do not accept evolution only. I have no desire to convince anyone to believe in God. The world is built so that every person can choose not to see God in creation.
Miracles
Waiting for an answer. Do small children believe this nonsense?
Miracles
You want to tell me that at the age of three you believed such things?
Out of the box.
Yes - there is not a single verified story of a "mind outside the body". There are many lies and many idiots who believe lies. There is only one truth.
I love how you fit reality to your beliefs. It is suitable for a three year old…..
Out of the box.
This is actually an easy question. My description is based on an experiment that was carried out, and continues to be carried out even today. Let's assume that we have a defined place where a certain amount of bacteria lives (let's say a puddle). Their reproduction process is simple - division into two. But, we know that there are mistakes in division and sometimes the DNA of the offspring is slightly different from that of the parent bacterium. In some cases, perhaps most, the various offspring die. But - the rate of reproduction is huge (doubling every 20 minutes), so the amount of bacteria is still increasing. In some of the descendants, this variation, for example, allows the bacteria to digest food that is different from the other bacteria. The offspring of these bacteria will also digest the new food.
As long as there is plenty of food, there will be no problem, and the two species will live together. But, due to the rate of reproduction, the food that the majority eat will decrease, and then the new type will have an advantage. Therefore, the new type will multiply faster and in the end we will get a new strain of bacteria. If the bacteria live in several places, then we will have, after a time, several strains.
Answering the question?
Miracles
Have all the stories been debunked?
I wonder if all the stories had scientists checking.
It can be said that everything that the scientists tested in a laboratory situation was disproved..
There are 2 answers
First, death caused by the very departure of the soul is not a scientific experiment at all, it is an uncontrollable situation.
B. The results of the scientific test can be interpreted as I have already explained and it is written in the article that brain chaos is created... that is, a suitable place for infinite discovery in the brain
A.
You will be surprised, but in the Western world, the number of non-believers is increasing in a way that greatly worries the church, and the Protestant bodies in the USA.
Out of the box.
Yes … almost death. There are many stories, but not a single proven evidence. All the stories of people floating above their bodies have been debunked.
Nissimg
Regarding the big bang, I wrote to you that it is according to my opinion.. There are those who are unable to understand that the whole process started with the bang.
But this is also enough for me that the difference is the beginning. And then the selection... so it comes out 'The selection was made randomly. is a random product. It comes out where any other choice could have arisen..and this choice may have variation because it is a direct continuation of variation, i.e. of randomness.
I would appreciate it if you could give me a simple explanation. How was the first choice made? The so-called prototype. And why is it not a random process. leading to randomness
Miracles
A scientific terrorist is right about one thing.
You really are a minority.
It's a fact. And indeed you and all of us have something to worry about. Not because there are more traditionalists and religious (overwhelming majority of those who define themselves as secular) but because of the extremism of these groups.
Miracles
Regarding a scientific experiment on phenomena experienced by people after clinical death, see an article on this website "Memories of near-death experiences"
Out of the box.
In the context of evolution - variation comes first of course. The reason for the choice is the variety.
Out of the box.
What about the Big Bang and language/choice?
Miracles
Maybe you can explain to me
Who is before whom the variation or selection. Is the big bang which I think is an integral part of the process of formation that eventually led in a manner of variation and selection to the formation of life on our planet.. Did it start from variation or selection.
If modified then the rest of the step by step process will perhaps also create the selection. It turns out that the choice is a complex process of variation.. and if he started choosing what compelled him.
Or assuming that in nature the reality of variation and choice is an eternal reality that depends on each other. Where did this reality come from .. and if it always existed and did not come from some source .. then you are talking about laws in nature that have no limit .. they have neither beginning nor end ..
He is what I said before that there are those who glorify nature so much that they make it a foreign work
Out of the box.
I hate to tell you, but you talk a lot of nonsense.
Let's start with the randomness of evolution. I explained to you, but you refused to listen, that evolution is based on variation and selection. The variation is random (as far as we know) but the selection is not random at all. There are tens of millions of species in the world, and there happens to be one species called man. Like any existing species, we are here by chance. We have one unique feature, grammar, but beyond that we are a species as any species.
It has nothing to do with what we're saying - really, don't be so awkward. Your example of the language just shows how clueless you are of what you are talking about. Just as not every combination of DNA creates a living being, not every combination of letters creates a meaningful word. You really don't get it?
How did you infer that I say there is no natural selection? I would appreciate an explanation 🙂
You wrote "because of the many testimonies of people who go through, and have gone through, the after-death experience, the scientists are taken seriously and explain the phenomenon as a process that exists in the brain in one way or another" - this is simply an ugly lie. There is not a single such testimony - and science does not take this nonsense seriously. And you repeat this stupid lie over and over and over again. Please, study before you write. You know, unpleasant…..
It's also clear to me that you don't understand the difference between clinical death and brain death, right?
I am very sorry that you are defending yourself like a cornered cat. Try to listen to what they tell you. I explained evolution to you and I thought even you could understand it. I must have been wrong….
Miracles
Now a reference to the arts that you claim to believe in
” We are a random result of evolution. And only by chance are we the way we are"
So it turns out that everything we say in logic is a random coincidence. The laws that exist in nature is a random coincidence. And there is no difference between Aanobetzpamf and the other words that we write. Because from the point of view of nature there is no need for any law including the mantra that is used "natural selection" because actually according to what you say there is actually no natural selection.. because this too random.
"We believe that there is no soul and no life after death" is it true..because of the many handles of people who pass. and have gone through the after-death experience treat the scientists seriously and explain the phenomenon as a process that exists in the brain in one way or another.. The simple fact is that the phenomenon of the experience that people who have undergone clinical death go through exists.. Science also recognizes it.. it's just that it tries to come up with a certain explanation. The phenomenon is a scientific fact, the explanation is subject to understanding here and there.. It is also possible to explain this that when the brain functions less there is room for a connection between what the brain sees and spiritual entities that are outside the boundaries. Obtaining the brain Something that the soul sees and perceives.
"Morality.. the result of experience and thought" Indeed, the Sages refer to this as well, had it not been for the Torah, we would have learned modesty from a cat...etc. That is, we would have learned from nature, both human and those around us.. See the wisdom of Zen.. and other wisdoms of many peoples.. but I don't understand that according to you everything is random. And since experience and thought is a complex combination of randomness, why is morality important?
Miracles
Maybe I didn't understand correctly..or our approach to the word faith is different.
I will try to explain... the Jewish faith is above reason and knowledge, it encompasses and revolves around intellectual logic. When there is logic then it is no longer faith.. it can actually be wisdom or understanding or knowledge..
When we compare the creator of the world to some form of faith in any physical thing.
For example, a unicorn is an imaginary animal, but we can still draw it in the eyes of our mind.. even a ghost, despite being more abstract, still has room for our mental definition since it has a connection to our physical body.. and anything we try to imagine in the eyes of our limited mind will not compare To him..on this there is the verse "To whom shall I imagine and I will marry" within the boundaries of our world we have no possibility of seeing and attaining the Creator.
And you are talking about faith in something that man has achieved with his limited intelligence.. With such faith, man's free choice is given. He can direct his understanding and knowledge here and there.
That is why the Rambam begins with "the foundation of the foundations and the pillar of wisdom." It is for the knowledge that exists and from which all that exist were found" Rambam uses the word for knowledge since the basic principle is to know as the human power to know. But he does not use the word believe because faith is above knowledge and does not depend on the ability or inability of the Jew. It is ingrained in us.
Scientific terrorist
If you are a representative of the religious world, then my minority has nothing to worry about. You encouraged me 🙂
we will try
You have a colossal mistake.
Most Jews are believers.
You are in the minority.
And your only ways to control public opinion is through feverish brainwashing on websites and other means of communication. And you don't succeed there either. Your quibbles and your attempts to fight any religions will evaporate with you as quickly as they farted you into this world. that's it. Happy Purim.
out of the box
I know a large group of Jews who do not believe in any god, ghost or unicorn. They (we) believe that everything has a natural explanation, that there was a big bang about 14 billion years ago and that evolution by natural selection is the explanation for the multitude of species that exist today.
We believe that man is contingent, like any animal. That is - we are a random result of evolution, and only by chance are we the way we are.
We believe there is no soul and no life after death.
We believe that morality is important to our lifestyle and is the result of experience and thought.
Our beliefs are the result of taste and opinion. Our beliefs are based on free thought, observations and research.
You want to talk to us about our beliefs then please. Ask and we'll explain. But if all you want is to preach, then a website of thinking people is not the place.
Out of the box
"Faith without reason and opinion".... Does that explain why I gave you a simple explanation for evolution and you ignored it?
"In my humble opinion, there is no Jew in the world who does not believe"
You called me ? 🙂
You will be amazed, even at the God you described, the one who created everything and took into account all future upgrades, I don't believe in him either.
I have a question for you, do you consider the possibility that you might be wrong? Because I'm sorry to inform you, but this is exactly the situation.
"It's called faith without reason and knowledge..."
It's really a shame and very sad that a mature person consciously decides to believe in something pointlessly and mindlessly, in a blind way, just because that's what you were told when you were 5 years old, because that's what the Rebbe told you. I've said it before and I'll say it again - God, and no matter how convoluted you define him, exists only in your imagination. In other words, there is no such thing in reality.
A'
I am happy that you are a believing person.. but in my humble opinion there is no Jew in the world who does not believe. Including all the atheists in their opinion... because actually I don't believe in the God they claim they don't believe in either... because such a god that they really think about doesn't exist.
In addition, maybe it will sadden you, but also in the same god who created the big bang world over the time of Malardi and millions of years. And then later on for millions of years an evolutionary process. without any source of life. I don't believe in such a God.. I believe in the God of my life who has a limit who said let there be light and immediately there will be light. Be lofty and immediately become lofty. I believe in God who created the world 5576 years ago. ready and perfected.
That is why this concept is called faith. And not knowledge is the concept above the box called reason and logic.
It's called faith without reason and knowledge..
When living by such a belief. Everything with him is under private supervision, down to the smallest particle
So I come closer to understanding the unattainable.
rival
Today, when a person makes a computer, he also prepares the possibility of upgrading the computer.. and all this according to the data he has now and the hypotheses and intentions of what will happen in the future with the development of computing, the software and the hardware.. all of this is surely limited according to the knowledge that the person has now and his explanations about the future.
Now when the creator of the world that was present and will be. Above time and a place with infinite abilities creates his creatures.. Is he limited at the time of his creation to see the trials of the human creature.. when he performs his trials on a banana or a watermelon, etc.??? To begin with, when the creature was created in the six days of Genesis, he was created with abilities that included an upgrade.
And there is no proof here that these very changes were not created in the six days of creation.
With your permission, I will now turn to A.
Interesting posts about evolution but I'd love to hear what you think.
I recognize a problem with the following sentences:
"The Neanderthals lived in Europe during ice ages in the Pleistocene era," says Prof. Ran Barkai. "At that time ice covered the earth for long periods. It was difficult to impossible for Neanderthals to obtain plant food, so they were very dependent on animal food, mainly from large animals, with an emphasis on *mammoths*."
"The amount of protein was high to allow a high consumption of protein from meat so that the liver, kidneys and bladder grew, and with them the chest in its lower part. ... as a result of environmental pressure of a lack of *fat* and carbohydrates, and a relatively high availability of protein."
This contradicts every observation in today's animals because the bigger the animal the more fat it has. All the more to argue that it is the opposite during the European Ice Age.
outside the boxes,
No problem take your time 🙂
I have an answer about Kapah's book, but not at the moment. I'm just reminding you that the question of how the first living cell was created has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, evolution only talks about what happened after, after this cell was created.
Out of the box,
But all the fruit/vegetable animals that Niss mentioned in his message, we could not have created if evolution was not true! How does a hard wild banana become a soft and sweet banana? How does a wolf turn into a small poodle? This proves to us that a huge change of an animal through evolution is possible! The whole difference between natural selection and artificial selection is who makes the selection, man or nature (predators for example).
It's such a simple thing that it's a shame you don't understand it.
Yariv At the same time as the book of evolution, I am also studying Fermat's last theorem.. and the physics of the impossible by Mitsu Kaku.. and also the book of Rabbi Kapah.. and the book of evolution. When I finish the book and estimate until the coming Pesach. I will inform you about the reference to the day before you will still be welcome.
Of course between these times. I also have to provide for my family and at the same time study Torah... so patience until the date I have committed to
And now about this book you let me read. Here there is already more room for scientific reference.
A. Regarding Rabbi Kook, you should read the entire book. From Rabbi Kook's words, there is no clear understanding of who he intends to see more openly.. What's more, the passage is censored.. and it seems to me on purpose that you should read the Lipani and the later.
Regarding the chapters of Darbi Eliezer, this is a midrash, it is worth studying a little Torah to distinguish between a simple and a midrash
To Gabi Rambam in Mora Nabukim. You have to see his progressive opinion about the creation of the world from the structure of the universe.. and about the Creator himself.. if you wanted to know. Study the first chapters of the science book.
For general information. There is a difference between a philosophical deepening book and the Halacha.. The Halacha is actually the final conclusion. And absolute..
And now regarding what I was able to read from the explanation of evolution
.A. The multitude of species in the world and the similarities between them is the proof that there is an infinite source of possibilities. On the side of infinity there is an infinite multiplicity of possibilities.. on the side of being one source there is a similarity between mankind.
B. The evolutionary changes created by man. After all, they don't prove anything that indeed evolution happened by itself and that's how it was in the past. On the contrary, already in the creation of man, he was given the power and the ability to do whatever he thought of with the animals and the world..this is as it is written in Genesis.
That's why when you take a white tiger and pair it with a white female... it's one of the abilities given to man in his control over the animals..
This proves that what is written in the Torah is indeed true... it is a fact that man is able to control the animals in the world. And in the manner of Radia... he received the power to be the master of the world.
Outside, what page did you reach in the book?
I'm curious.
Out of the box,
The problem is that you have decided that the Torah is the truth, "absolute truth", and from that you draw all your conclusions, meaning what is right and what is wrong.
This is instead of examining things objectively (for example, all the evidence in the world shows us that we evolved over millions of years, and were not created all at once).
rival
At this stage I will answer your questions and the intentions of your visions... I would appreciate it if you would allow me to refer to A
First, regarding the movie on YouTube.. it is shallow and lacks depth and ignores the Sage's treatment of the same difficulties he found.. After all, the Sages do not ignore and did not ignore the inaccuracies.
A. Among the ten commandments in the two books are names and words
B. to those who did not know the works of God
third. To the Torah book that is found, etc.
Because this site is not intended for Torah study. Unfortunately, the film is shallow and does not deepen..
But it's a bit funny that you take a book of fairy tales and these fairy tales supposedly try to prove certain truths.
If the book is telling the truth, treat it as such and delve into the messages conveyed through it. And if it is just stories picked out of your finger. Do not build your thesis based on imaginations in the book.. Sages treated the scriptures as truths and therefore based on this they interpreted the difficulties.
While the so-called Torah falsifiers read the imaginary verse according to their method that there was and was not created a legend in Alma and based on this imaginary verse they build a truth that is supposedly not imaginary.
Hahahaha (as the talkbackists say) I'll try..
By the way, thinking outside the box is good, but on the other hand it's also not good to be too open minded because then the mind may fall 😀
The main thing is not to disturb with videos about the Exodus???
It depends on him too.
If he will really think outside the box?
And of course he will read the things.
I'm just saying there's a chance.
I really hope he also reads what I wrote. I put a lot of thought into it. (although your link is still more important)
A',
Ok, you are welcome to try 🙂
rival
I think you are wrong in thinking that he cannot be convinced.
I think he can accept evolution as long as he understands that it does not contradict his faith. Any statement that science contradicts religion will only alienate him and that is also not true. This was said out of a lack of understanding of religion. And thinking that everything in the Torah should be interpreted exactly according to what is written. But no religion works like that
The 'explanation' described in the article sounds like a hypothesis that is difficult to substantiate, since no effort has been made to verify and attack it with any empirical means.
It is possible to get an idea of the plausibility of the hypothesis through comparisons of the types of human populations that exist today in the world, and that maintain genomic differences attributed to the varying levels of ancient pairings with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans (and another subspecies, whose traces are evident in the genome of the populations of the islands of the South Indian Ocean, and there is no evidence today finds fossils about him). Neanderthals contributed approximately 4-5% to the genome of the populations in the Far East, and approximately 2-3% to the genome of European populations. In contrast, there is no contribution of the Neanderthals to the populations in Africa. Now, it is possible that the changing rates of the contributions will affect the organs that the hypothesis in question deals with - for example in the direction of a certain enlargement of the liver in the populations that benefit from a non-negligible contribution from the Neanderthals, such as in Europe or East Asia or the southern islands of Indonesia, and in Australia and the surrounding areas of Australia. If such a change is indeed detected, this will provide some support for the hypothesis and its likelihood will increase.
Intuitively, I am personally satisfied that such a change will indeed be discerned empirically.
Out of the box,
Download the document to your computer, and browse it for a few minutes, it's really good:
http://www.toraumada.org.il/toraumada1stEd.pdf
A',
It's just funny to me that a person treats scientific theories (which is a fact by any standard) as some wild guess that shouldn't be taken seriously, but on the other hand treats practical stories as "absolute truth". The blindness of such people never ceases to amaze me.
rival
The problem is that you insist on convincing the outsider not to be religious instead of convincing him to accept evolution.
That's why you will never succeed. Even to crush the box it is more convenient to pull the discussion in all directions.
outside the box.
I hope you also opened the second link and my responses to you from the previous article.
I would appreciate it if you would comment on them (the second link from Riv was actually written by someone serious who also understands the Torah (rabbi)
Out of the box,
I didn't understand what was said in the video was wrong, doesn't the Torah admit that suddenly a Torah book was found that no one knew the stories written in it?
What is wrong with the video?
rival
I went to the link to the clip.. I apologize in advance for what I am saying now.. but now I fully understand what the Sages meant when they said ignorance and people of lands.. since the site here is about science and not learning Torah.. this is my response to the clip
outside the box
It is true that science is dynamic and changing.
But this is not just random movement. Each time we get closer to the truth and discover that the theories we rejected or changed are also closer to the truth than what was before them. Even if there will be new theories in the future, today's theories are still very close to the description of reality. The changes she showed are also small changes, like the fact that the dog did not come from the gray wolf but from another wolf.
In any case, science will not say that the world has existed for less than 6000 years. This will not happen, you have to interpret this Gemara differently (it is not written explicitly in the Torah, nor is there ever in your book a dating of several years from the creation of the world) as I am sure you interpret differently from the simplicity of the Gemara that gnats are created from sand (as the whole world once thought) Because you know they hatch from eggs. What solid facts will tell you? There are telescopes that see stars much more distant than 6000 light years, this means that the light from these stars came out much more than 6000 years ago. There are also enough experiments that show that light cannot exceed the speed of light.
Out of the box.
Definately not!! Evolution is a fact, just like there is a moon in the sky is a fact. A theory in Zen science is not a hypothesis. Hypothesis - the corresponding concept is hypothesis.
Let's understand what evolution is and pay attention to every word: evolution is the process of change in species as a result of multiplication, variation, selection and inheritance. that's it. This is an observed phenomenon. Darwin saw this in cultured animals and various creatures in his travels around the world.
Now let's get into the details:
Multiplicity - we all see that there is multiplicity, right?
Diversity - we see that not all children are the same as their parents. Domestication is based on this. Everything you eat today (almost) does not exist in nature. All plants and all animals have undergone incredible changes to get what we see today. For example - in nature there is no kohlrabi, cauliflower or broccoli. In nature, bananas are not edible. There are no sheep in the wild, or cows, or chickens.
Inheritance - farmers have known for thousands of years that if you select the individuals with a certain trait then you can breed so that trait will improve. The mechanism is already something else, and was only discovered in the middle of the last century (DNA).
Choice - here is a hypothesis 🙂 In domestication, man is the chooser. We choose the strong bulls and the cows that produce more milk.
What chooses in nature? That's the million dollar question! Darwin's answer - natural selection. Darwin argued that environmental conditions are the causes of selection. For example - the size of the seeds in different islands determined the size of the beak in the finches. In the African steppes - the high speed of the deer chose those cheetahs that ran the fastest. And vice versa 🙂
From all of this - something I wrote doesn't seem right to you?
If you can, read the other comments in the article as well, I also wrote to you there.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolutionary-leap-from-fins-to-legs-was-surprisingly-simple-2303168
Out of the box,
Download this document to your computer, and browse it for a few minutes, it's really good:
http://www.toraumada.org.il/toraumada1stEd.pdf
Out of the box,
The Torah is not an absolute truth even if you repeat it a million times, you have one single testimony written in the Torah, not 600 thousand testimonies.
The Jewish people is a fact, but the stories that this people tells are far from being a fact. The Exodus never happened in reality, it's simply her actions that you believe in.
I'll ask again, have you seen the following short video that explains how the Exodus developed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcDHHPdM0eY
rival
I didn't see it..I would love to have the link again
Thanks in advance
For miracles. A. and Rival
All I'm trying to say is that there are indisputable facts in science. It's simple.. Even when you take facts and use them to come to hypotheses, there is no problem with that..
The problem begins when the hypothesis is treated as a fact..and another indisputable fact..
And since that's how I brought 3 examples. The first of the fish in the article admits that it is not as previously thought.. The same goes for the wolf and the dog.. and the same goes for this article..
All I asked was that you distinguish between a hypothesis and a scientific fact.. A hypothesis means a theory.. The discovery of bones is a scientific fact..
Therefore, as much as they call the idea of evolution a fact and no matter how much.. it will still remain a hypothesis..
And since this hypothesis stands in front of me absolute truth. With a written history.. that was written in real time.. and is found to this day both in writing and in a message from father to son of at least 600 thousand testimonies. In different people with different opinions from each other.. and by customs that have been practiced since that time. This truth stands in front of me. Above the service.. and in particular that does not contradict the facts found
Who is my father and why is it difficult for him? 🙂
A',
It's interesting to me too, but don't have high expectations.
You didn't answer when you read your opponent's link from the comments on fish and limbs. I'm really interested in what you think about it.
my father
got it
It's hard for you..ok
Does anyone know a theory about the degeneration of the human sense of smell. Sounds to me like the sense of smell should have a big survival advantage. At least until the transition to agriculture, which was not long enough for such a big change
Out of the box.
Did we already say you don't know what a theory is in science?
Out of the box,
Can I be curious and ask what page you reached with the book?
Regarding your comments, know that this is exactly what is beautiful about science, that you don't know everything and so you keep researching all the time and discovering new things. This is in contrast to the Torah that your rabbis have decided is all true (which is of course complete nonsense) and then invent an excuse for anything they discover that does not correspond to what is written in it, such as the theory of evolution, or the age of the world.
A fish with legs was indeed discovered and its name is Tiktalaik, and the current article also does not contradict evolution in any way. There are things that can only be speculated, such as why the theropod dinosaurs started to grow wings and what advantage they had in half a wing that does not allow for flight.
Did you check the link I gave earlier to the document on evolution? Did you take a look at it? You should, he's really interesting.
outside the box
Did you open the link that a rival sent in the response about the fish and the limbs?
rival
A small note
"We offer a new and surprising explanation"
"Dog and Wolf"
"fish with limbs"
There must be more.. and a lot..
Did we say theory?
Where are all the paleo followers who say most of the diet should be meat. Bunch of pseudo science.
Even the Inuit who lived almost without plants did not feed mainly on large animals. These ate more fish (I don't know what the fishing skills of the primitive human species were but it sounds like a difficult operation to me).
Hunting of large animals was of course also by Homo sapiens. But hunting large animals even without iron is an operation that requires a lot of energy and is very dangerous. Homo sapiens would have preferred to obtain food in ways that require less energy and risk if they had a choice and they certainly did not base most of their diet on it or eat the amounts of meat that is customary today.
Interesting list though:
Again and again mistakes are made in the nomenclature of the classification and sorting,
It says: "……the Neanderthal is a type of person ….." Not true!
Neanderthal is a species (not a genus) that belongs to the genus Homo...
The writers should also understand that instead of "adaptation"
It is correct to write adaptation in Hebrew,
It's a shame that serious lists fall due to unnecessary arrivals...