New clues to vertebrate evolution from a tiny marine animal

78 תגובות

1. Moshe, I can't answer all your questions (you probably won't read it anyway), but I can give you an explanation for one small thing, and I hope it will help you start to understand what's going on (and again, I'm not a genius or anything, And I will probably complicate the answer, but I'm sure that at its core, my answer is correct):
   The taste receptors in the tongue exist because food has a tendency to rot.
   Try eating rotten fruit sometime. The taste is bad, and nauseating. The reason for this is that your body is telling you "Don't eat this! It's dangerous, and it will kill you!”
   And like any useful trait, it's a trait that didn't take long to spread to the entire population (since it didn't appear in humans before, but apparently has existed since the days when our ancestors were the size of a dog, and still climbed trees (~45 million years). Why Beneficial traits spread throughout the population within a few generations? Because if creatures with the trait survive better than creatures without the trait, eventually only those with the trait will survive.

   Take another example our color vision.
   Why the hell are humans able to see the color red (well, not only humans, but all primates)?
   No other mammal is able to see this color, and in fact, only insects, birds, and a limited number of reptiles are able to see it. So why on earth are primates able to see the color red?
   The answer, again, lies in the days when humans were little monkeys that climbed trees, and fed on leaves.
   The newest leaves, the ones that are the freshest, have a... more reddish tint than the older, greener leaves (which contain toxins and acids that can damage the teeth of these leaf eaters, not to mention that they are harder) and since primates are unable to regrow teeth like many other mammals , primates who had the ability to locate the youngest leaves (see: leaves with a reddish tint), survived the best, and therefore got to pass their genes on.

2. I would actually recommend you start with statistics (before evolution):
   On a deserted island lives a creature whose reproduction rate is 150% in a hundred years (if in 1800 there were 100 such creatures, in 1900 there will be 150)
   One of the creatures that lived on the island in the 1800s was born with a certain genetic mutation that allows him a 155% breeding rate.
   An example of a mutation - the appearance of white spots on the fur, which allows for slightly better camouflage in the area of ​​the island, and increases the chance of surviving and giving birth to more offspring (for the data I presented, this means survival of only 5 additional productions over 100 years).
   The statistical question is, in how many years (if at all) will the population of productions with white spots occupy over fifty percent of the population of all productions?
   The answer is - much faster than we think.
   In 14,000 years (140 generations) there will be more spotted productions than unspotted productions.
   In 27,000 years, spotless productions will be a thing of the past.

   Now take this idea and connect it to a complex reality where there are countless mutations in countless genes, a reality where any change (even a tiny one) that increases the chances of survival in a promil of a promil spreads through the population so quickly.
   By the way, if you need proof of the speed at which evolution works, you can always look at examples of social and technological evolution (not necessarily genetic)... Take for example the development of the human race in the last six thousand years, if it is not insanely complex (think of all human knowledge of today compared to the situation a few tens of thousands of years ago, about the complexity of the technological world, about the complexity of the spiritual world, etc., etc.)

   I will return to the original recommendation - a course in statistics 🙂
   And if you really want to understand - Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" presents evolution in a relatively simple way to understand (and uses examples and numbers from the real world).

3. Gillian
   Surely there is a benefit in knowledge if it is possible to derive predictions from it for other fields or to open up additional research directions. If the information is a story for its own sake and the only benefit is an explanation for certain phenomena that already have other explanations, it is not satisfactory.
   When there are already several explanatory alternatives without being able to predict or deduce additional things, it is a bit weak. Because what advantage do you have in this or that explanation over another except a natural tendency to look a certain way.
   But when it is possible to move forward through the explanation further, it has significant consequences and results.
   If you take for example the school of creation versus the version of evolution. Each interpretation has far-reaching consequences for those who hold them. For the former in relation to their beliefs in the management of their lives and their fortunes by a higher power that creates worlds.
   and the latter strengthening faith in logic and man's ability to explain his world and the procedure of his life with his simple logic without the need for additions. That is, the interpretation is not limited to only the specific topic, essentially it is part of a whole tree with its various branches that spreads to all areas of life.
   So how does it work for you using the external explanation please.

4. Apart from a prophetic system, the theory must have a scenario in which it will be disproved. Evolution, for example, would be disproved if a rabbit fossil were found that was dated to 3 billion years. Every scientific theory needs such a scenario, a scenario in which it is disproved.

   I would love to hear such a scenario regarding your theory.

5. Gillian,

   Like Michael, I will also ignore the strange claim that you are not trying to convince anyone of anything. After all, throughout the discussion with Hanan, for example, he tried to convince me that articles and books do not have to undergo peer review in order to be reliable. This is the basis of your entire alien claim, in fact, backed up by events described in books and reports that have not been peer-reviewed.

   As for Michael and Dumbledore's question, it is far from trivial as you presented it. A really good theory is determined, among other things, by its success in predicting new phenomena and explaining them. The theory of 'Ice on Mars' can predict the conditions that exist there today, our chances of developing some kind of agriculture there, restoring an atmosphere, producing water and so on.

   So the very serious question is asked, what are the predictions of your alien theory. If you make serious predictions, and those predictions will indeed come true in a way that they can be explained mainly through your theory (aliens have visited and are visiting the Earth and the governments hide the information from us) then this is an excellent way for you to prove the theory.

   Hanan,

   We will go through the sections:

   1. "Prof. Hiss's article is in my possession and I would be happy to send you a copy in the Word version (yes - and it is an original document, even though it is in the Word version)."

   I would be very happy if you would pass it on to me, so that I can read and wait.

   2.” Michael Schumer ignores many studies, especially those concerning physical findings. He focuses on denying evidence and showing plastic dolls on TV (as he did in one of the interviews with Larry King). "

   It is likely that Mr. Shermer is indeed not a big fan of the UFO theory, but that is exactly what the peer review says. In many scientific articles, the reviewer is one of the professional adversaries of the publisher of the article, and there is nothing he would hate more than to see the article published. This is precisely where the strength of the scientific method lies, since the same critic points out every weak point in the article he is checking. You will surely agree with me that if the critics were only the people who anyway like the author and the essay, then the peer review would be nothing more than a rubber stamp that is not worth its weight.
   Therefore, the question is asked again: Are there any other studies in this field that have undergone strict and careful peer review?

   3. “Regarding Chiao from Berkeley. I personally am not a physicist, but it does not seem to me that his studies are not published because of mistakes. He is not the only one in the entire study, but there is a whole team. Also, most of the studies can be found online."

   I'm not a physicist either, but I see no reason to assume that his studies are not free of gross errors. Even if he is the head of a research team (like any professor), this does not mean that his research is flawless. Most of the research in the last fifty years (and long before that) was done in teams, and still according to the source you provided, 30% of medical research is infected with fakes or errors. It is likely that there are also studies in which the errors are so large that no sane newspaper would want to publish them.

   And regarding the junk DNA - I went through your article (thanks for the link). It has several problems that I will not begin to address in the current forum. I will only point out that the commenter named 'Reuven of Herzliya' describes the problems in it nicely and I recommend that everyone who reads the article also read his comments.

   Have a good week everyone,

   Roy.

6. What stupid questions did I ask? Or is it simply a seemingly elegant way to avoid answering them?

7. SEPTEM - It is interesting that those who do not speak to the matter, expect that they will also respond to the matter. We responded to your words exactly as one should respond, or in other words: those who ask stupid questions, should not be surprised that they receive stupid answers.

   Dumbledore - what benefit does the fact that ice was discovered on Mars bring you? Will you fly there tomorrow for a skiing holiday?

   . I rest my case

8. Dumbledore; If you are looking for benefit, why extraterrestrials? Become a charismatic and successful evangelist pastor and travel across America giving "lectures". You will earn a lot of money and work very little. Your family will definitely enjoy.
   You can also become a communicator with extraterrestrials and work on many lures that you heal through knowledge you get from them (via telepathic morse or whatever you like). You will also earn a lot of money from this (and it is easy to do in Israel as well).

   Gillian and Hanan no longer respond to the matter, so...

   Have a good week everyone, anyway.

9. Gillian and Hanan:
   To answer my question you didn't have to read the whole history - something you accuse me of not doing even though I did.
   You only had to read the question.
   read to you again what is written in it?
   Show you the place where it is not written that I said you are trying to convince?
   So that's not the question and Gillian - you messed up again and you just attacked again - just like always.
   It's not that I believe you - I actually think you're trying to convince, but since I saw that you're trying to claim that you're just talking without trying to convince (something no one does, but I have no intention of arguing with you about it), I decided to ask a different question and that's what I did.
   So now - after I removed you from the automatic response you give without reading - Annely, will you read my question again and answer? what do you think?

10. Gillian
    Maybe you could explain the importance of alien knowledge. How this knowledge can help me in life in the future or in the present.
    I would be very happy to hear wise advice on the matter from you, I have no objection to adopting the knowledge and approach you represent. In my opinion, there is no point in prejudices that exclude extraterrestrials, what is important is the benefit, and I would like you to elaborate a bit on that if you can.

11. Michael, you also have the same answer that I replied to Roy, but apparently you did not read: no one is trying to convince you of this, and it is not at all clear why you think that someone is trying to convince you.

    It is now completely clear to me that you are reacting blindly and emotionally, unrealistically and without relevance to the content of the discussion, while repeating mantras known from the world of religion.

    And this time it's really over and done with.

    And this time it's really over and done with.

12. First of all Michael - have a nice flight...

    Second, as we have already said several times, we have no intention of convincing. The only goal is to present the information to the public from all its points of view and not just from one point of view. That way anyone who is interested in the subject can examine the data for themselves.

13. Hanan and Gilio:
    I will probably read your responses (if you respond - those who cannot or do not want to respond objectively do not have to) only after I return from Iceland.
    I won't go into all the reasons why I reject your argument right now - it requires too much work and I've already realized that there's no point in it. Besides, you have not yet satisfied my request for peer review of the studies.
    What really interests me is the motivation behind your "research".
    That is - what do you think should change in my behavior - for example - once I am convinced that you are right.
    Is there something I will do differently (for example - when I cross the road I will look right, left and up)?
    Will you equip me with ways to break free from aliens who have grabbed me, stripped me and stuck me to the ceiling?
    In short - how the conviction will affect my life.
    I ask this because it seems to me that this whole debate is actually about the flying spaghetti monster.
    This is more similar to a question about the existence of the God of Gaps than to a question about the correctness of its claims and the moral imperatives of the Jewish religion, for example.

14. Hanan:
    The article, the truth is short, whose presentation is hidden by a curved razor
    and presents the appearance of modern man in a misleading way, for our appearance they know an explanation
    It lies in the positive feedback between language development and brain growth.
    And there is no need for aliens to explain mutations in junk DNA.
    On top of that, there is no reason to make the mistake of thinking that the similar appearance of aliens in the testimonies stems from a genetic link when we already know today the psychological limitations in the perception of reality that can easily be identified in these testimonies.

15. Gillian:
    It's interesting how you can go back in history exactly to the point you want.
    What do you think of the last line in Hanan Sabat's response to which Septem responded?
    Do you think it is justified to ignore her?

16. SEPTEM - The one who wrote "You raised my blood pressure" should have thought of some level of respect, but since this is not the case, please do not complain about the conduct of others (especially when they only demand your safety and not the other way around) in the discussion.

    I wish you only health and longevity.

17. Thanks for the comments that care about my well-being.
    I'm fine thanks.

    Hanan, do you have a link to independent studies from different places that examine the subject of alien DNA? (Studies that have been peer-reviewed of course. To be sure of this, it is better that their source is a recognized and serious scientific journal, and not "Alienstoday". I'm sure you understand why).

    By the way, isn't it easier to assume other roles for Junk DNA? Like, for example, maintaining the molecular structure of the helix. One can think of a considerable number of other possibilities before making such a hypothesis about extraterrestrial programming.
    What's more, it is not clear where this degree of similarity between programming and DNA coding comes from. Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that the programming itself is partly based on ideas taken in principle from various interests of our favorite reel (and I would be happy if there is a programmer in the area to clarify things).

    In general, you are simply arguing too much for the conspiracy and repression of the scientific establishment. You won't get far alone with the persuasion of 12-year-old children. (You can convince them with a lot of weird truths).
    Not because science is oppressive or because there are conspiracies, but mostly because that's what you claim and that there is probably something wrong with the evidence you present.

    I forgot to add that I would be happy about studies presented in well-known and serious scientific journals (on the subject of physics) that are known to undergo serious peer review, on the subject of that "annihilation of gravity" you mentioned. After all, this is no small discovery, I hope you agree with me. (Because until now gravitation is a pretty big mystery, you probably know that).

    And one more thing, Hanan; There are also homeopaths who have been researching the field for many years, and are convinced that they have evidence (and evidence has indeed been published in many journals, scientific in their view). Nevertheless, I think it was unfair to invite such a homeopath to the children's channel to explain to children about homeopathy as if it were absolute truth and completely accepted by the entire scientific community.
    You think that because you've been researching the area for a certain amount of time, this gives you the authority to speak for him and omit the controversy as if it didn't exist, in a sort of death to yourself with the conspiracy excuse...
    I mean, you don't understand the problem with it?

    Thanks Gili, for the recommendation. Maybe a treatment with Cordoral will definitely do me a favor. But maybe it's better to let the doctor decide on the matter.
    By the way, I never recommended you (or anyone, for that matter, maybe apart from my little sister) to go without medication.
    If an 18-year-old pickpocket can maintain any level of respect, you might want to do some thinking about how you conduct yourself in an argument.

    A fruitful week for all.

18. Dear Roy, even if it's all right - I have to make one small, but important comment to finish:

    Unlike you, neither Hanan nor I tried to convince you of this.
    You probably completely missed the whole point of the matter from beginning to end and until this very moment you really didn't understand that my grievances towards you are solely about the condemnation and the use of the term "delusional nonsense".

    Hope things are clear now.

19. to Michael -

    At the time we wrote a long article about SETI and why it continues to provide for Seth Shostak and his friends and makes the immortal contribution to the world, in the form of a screensaver.

    Here is a link to the article:
    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/15/ART1/493/746.html

    to Roy -

    1. Prof. Hiss's article is in my possession and I would be happy to send you a copy in the Word version (yes - and it is an original document, even though it is in the Word version).

    2. Michael Schumer ignores many studies, especially those concerning physical findings. He focuses on denying evidence and showing plastic dolls on TV (as he did in one of the interviews with Larry King).

    3. Regarding Chiao from Berkeley. I personally am not a physicist, but it does not seem to me that his studies are not published because of mistakes. He is not the only one in the entire study, but there is a whole team. Also, most studies can be found online.

    4. Regarding further studies. I collect them bit by bit. I will try to bring such studies from time to time. There are hundreds of published pages (eg CIA and FBI documents released) and it takes a very long time to go through the information there.

    And a small note: no one is trying to convince here. Our goal is simply to present the peer review you discuss. Since in most places they are not even prepared to refer to these studies, our goal is not to convince, but to present to the public the studies and information that exist - and everyone is free to examine the material and draw their own conclusions.

    to the spring -

    Below is a link to an article that discusses some of the results produced by the studies concerning JUNK DNA. In any case, these are preliminary studies, and for some of them we have to wait for further results.

    I apologize in advance if the article is written very briefly, since it is not a scientific article but a popular one. In addition, in this case, I have not yet received the original studies, so I based myself on articles relating to the studies. One way or another, there are references to additional articles in the body of the article:

    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/15/ART1/517/905.html

    And a link to another article:
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01288.html

    Hanan Sabat
    http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

20. Hanan:
    I'm interested to know
    What exactly did the studies showing a link between junk DNA and aliens produce?
    Or I misunderstood your comment from the beginning of the discussion

21. To the cool commenter:
    As you can see here - not only computers can.
    In fact, there is a certain fulfillment here of Kurzweil's vision in which people and computers grind water together 🙂

22. Since when can computers grind water? D:

23. I have been absent for a while and tomorrow I will be absent more because I intend to be a foreigner in Iceland for 10 days.
    I see that you have written a lot, but you have not progressed beyond the issue of peer review, the lack of which I pointed out when Hanan first revealed the studies.
    Hanan - you claim that you have a lot of other studies, so there should probably be some peer-reviewed ones among them.
    Maybe you'll save us all some effort if you just mention these.
    Can anyone, by the way, explain to me why SETI still continue to invest capital in the search for something that has already been found and prefer to ignore all the evidence?
    Are they also part of the conspiracy and their whole purpose is to employ millions of computers around the world in water milling to keep them busy so they don't rebel?

24. Gillian,

    do you believe in fairies In Scientology? In the all-powerful and all-knowing Christian, Jewish and Muslim God? In the Tibetan Book of the Living Dead? In telepathy and telekinesis? Are certain human races superior to others?

    All of these were published in books that sold thousands and even millions of copies, and also contained 'scientific' proofs. It is true that the fact that a certain study appears in a peer-reviewed journal does not make it immune to errors (or even falsifications), but it reduces the chance of this by tens of thousands. This is why many scientists are only willing to consider data that comes from peer-reviewed articles, and are very skeptical of data from other sources.

    When you defend me for not being a 'serious researcher', you probably ignore that one of the most important principles in research is skepticism. Skepticism is what guides science on its way to separate the truth from the lie, and it is what forces us to admit that no strong enough evidence has yet been found to claim the presence of aliens on Earth.

    And since I see that neither of us will convince the other, I can only wish you a long and skeptical life.

    to flatter,

    First, thanks for the detailed answer and the effort I assume you put into each response here.

    It seems to me that the point of contention between us is the issue of peer review. You claim that none of the scientific journals were willing to publish Professor Hiss's paper. Maybe it's for a good reason? I'm not familiar with the article (I'd appreciate a reference, if it's still online), but isn't it possible that it contains scientific errors that are obvious to critics who know the subject in depth?

    Regarding the other books, you ask why I don't know that they haven't been peer-reviewed. Well, you tell me: have they been criticized at the hands of a number of skeptics on the subject, such as Michael Shermer, who analyzed their logic and demanded that they correct it in problematic places? Have they been audited by chemists who checked their references and the calculations and methods? Have they even been reviewed by other UFO researchers? And would (and this is the important point) this review invalidate the publication of the book if it was negative?

    If not, then they have not been peer reviewed.

    We will continue…
    The established academy may not be ready to publish research on security issues, but there are other organizations, for example ACU (American Concerned Scientists), which also publish on security issues. from as objective a point of view as possible, and trying to understand what the probability is that it is an alien aircraft. There is nothing and nothing between it and security. But if there were ten more articles like this a year, with proper peer review, I guarantee you that my opinion and the opinion of many others would change On the subject of UFOs. But when it comes to a one-off case, one can certainly find a simpler explanation for the phenomenon than 'aliens'. It is certainly possible that these are aliens (one can only hope...), but in order to prove it unequivocally, additional evidence is needed Peer review.

    Then again, you yourself have shown that when an article is written properly and deals with a well-documented event, it can be published even if it promotes the alien theory. It's more or less dropping the ground from under your feet when you say that they don't publish articles about aliens in the scientific literature.

    What more? As for Chiao Mbarelli, I am not familiar with his research. But I have faith that any physicist who hears that someone has managed to exceed the speed of light will first be annoyed, and then intrigued. And an editor of Science or Nature who receives such an article in his hands will not dare to take the risk that it is a trick. He will go through the article quickly, and if it is well written he will pass it on to more serious peer review. Then, if the peers approve of the methods they used, the paper will be published, and the paper publishing it will become a superstar.

    So like I said, I don't know Chiao from my visit, but there must be something really wrong with his research if no newspaper is willing to publish it. Because no one passes over a discovery of this magnitude in silence.

    Regarding your claim that studies that deny global warming are ostracized, I had the opportunity to read in Science about two years ago, about a study that denies global warming. So…

    And last but not least, regarding the State of Israel. It seems to me that you greatly overestimate the conspiracy ability of our small country, side by side with the conspiracy ability of the rest of the world's governments. The countries are democratic today. People are no longer imprisoned or sent to Siberia, especially if they can provide evidence for their claims. Does it really make sense to you that none of the politicians who changed every few years in governments around the world, did not go to the press and 'Zimmer'? After all, he will also be accepted as a hero before the world, which really longs to hear about the aliens!

    And finally - I'd love to hear about more studies like the Observatory, which have been peer-reviewed and still hint at the existence of aliens. May we find many more of these, and that you and I will get to talk to an alien face to face in our lifetime.

    good week,

    Roy.

25. Roy, unfortunately, the more I read your increasingly complicated claims (now you suddenly claim lies and falsifications in studies), then this time I have no choice but to use the phrase you yourself coined in this discussion - delusional nonsense.

    Over and done.

26. Roy, as I mentioned:

    1. This is a small part of studies. I am currently holding Peter Sturrock's book called: "THE UFO ENIGMA" which deals with physical findings left over from UFO events, and studies conducted on these findings.

    At the same time, I am awaiting the arrival of Stanton Friedman's new book, which deals entirely with scientific studies of the phenomenon.

    There is enough scientific material and, in my humble opinion, enough evidence (including thousands of physical findings). You just need patience and time to go through the information.

    2. Regarding the question of peer review: First of all, who said that there is no review and who said that these studies are not reviewed? Regarding scientific newspaper editors, please show me one of them who would be willing to publish, for example, Prof. Hiss's document, which is currently in front of me, concerning the Achihud incident (1997). Prof. Hiss himself also refused to publish the document. I allow myself to discuss it, since it was put online at the time.

    3. The established academy, as I said, is ready to publish information, as long as it does not concern security matters, or is not in the consensus of the heads of the academy. Please try to publish a study on Israel's biological weapons or on the biological institute in Ness-Ziona, and you will understand what I meant.

    4. Are you comparing the research on cold fusion to the research on UFOs? The matter of cold fusion was not taboo, but simply research on a subject that many have tried and are trying to solve. The matter was published in exactly the same way that Hitler's fake diaries or other studies were published (if you don't know, by the way, a study published at the time claims that over 30% of the medical studies published in the US are infected with such and other forgeries). These were ordinary scientists, accepted people from the establishment, who claimed to have managed to solve the problem. The topics you presented are not taboo at all. There is simply a debate about them, but they are not unusual in nature from any other theory or invention that is published (and the current website is full of articles about new dilutions and topics that seem unusual - but it is not a taboo).

    The phenomenon of UFOs is completely different from the phenomenon of cold fusion or other nonsensical studies published in the scientific press (see a random list of winners of the Ignoble Prize, in which several Israelis had the privilege of starring). This is an unusual phenomenon by all accounts. A random and rare phenomenon, which is very difficult to investigate, and which did not have many people who would admit publicly that they deal or have dealt with it. Such studies will not be published in the normal scientific press.

    I refer you, for example, to the researches of Prof. Chiao Mbarelli, who claimed that he was able to accelerate particles to a speed far exceeding the speed of light. The man publishes his research on the Internet and was even published in Israel by Dr. David Passig from Bar-Ilan University. What is interesting to note is that his studies are simply confiscated by the scientific community because they really deal with the taboo - the question of the speed of light and whether it is the maximum speed in the universe.

    These are just small cases of what I call confiscation and academic disdain. The same goes for studies that deny the phenomenon of global warming, as if it was caused by human hands, and so on... This is not an attempt to examine the findings, but rather a method of throwing arguments into the air without examining any findings. This is an effective method, as it requires no research and is easy to perform.

    5. You underestimate the Israeli government too much. Although we are a TP of the USA (according to its 51st country standard), but I guess you remember what happened to the last person who tried to publish photos and information about the reactor in Dimona to the world. Take into account that although it seems to you that in Israel everything is published and everything is visible, it is really not so. Just this week, for example, we published (I think for the first time on Israeli television) the word about the existence of "Aurora" model planes in Israel. The information has already been published on the Internet and even on the Air Force Base, but never on television.

    And finally, a small and interesting curiosity. Someone quick, decided to publish the research published in OBSERVATORY at the time on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors determined unequivocally that it was an asteroid (on what basis it was determined, unknown). It is interesting to note, that the entry on this unidentified object was removed from Wikipedia and except for the original study, all other serious studies about it were simply downloaded from the web.

    Hanan
    http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

27. Independent Science at its Finest: Independent Empirical Research of Facts that the Government Covers Up and Classifies, Yet the Internet UFO and Alien Scientist Community was able to obtain this information through independent scientific research. Not only are their research methods completely devoid of any bias in this direction or another, and they are a master in objectivity, but they also know things that no one else in the world knows except for them, except for the President of the United States and the Pope. That is why we should be grateful that they were able to collect such secret and classified information for us, which will be accessible to us, the ordinary, ignorant public And very unscientific.
    The scientific truth must come out, and it will come out, the government cannot hide what we all already know (even though it is still classified and whitewashed by the government, yes?). Only arrogant and arrogant people are able to ignore such conclusive scientific evidence. After all, if all governments are the most important in the world They went to the trouble of classifying and hiding it from the public eye, so surely all of this must be true.
    There will come a day when we will see white children, black children, and aliens playing together, all that is needed is just to believe.

28. Gillian,

    Radical ideas and research have been published in many scientific journals. For example, the idea that vitamins are harmful to health or that life in its cellular form came from outer space. Such ideas were not supported by the scientific community due to the lack of evidence for them - just like the theory of UFOs and aliens.

    And that is exactly what I am trying to say here: there is not enough evidence for this theory. And if scientists have been looking for over thirty years for evidence of the existence of aliens on Earth, don't you think it is very surprising that no serious articles have been published that provide serious evidence? In every other field there was progress in science accompanied by peer review - only in the field of aliens there was not.

    And again, it should be emphasized that peer review is a key concept in science, which ensures that no one can publish nonsense or mislead others. If there is no peer-reviewed evidence, then there is no evidence, period. And since you yourself admit that scientific journal editors are willing to peer review 'alien' articles that are sent to them, then if there were serious evidence for the presence of aliens, they would have been published in those journals a long time ago.

    Of all the links that Hanan has given here, only the second seems to me to be an article approaching peer review, since it appeared at a scientific conference. All the rest have not been peer-reviewed, and are therefore not reliable in my opinion. They can be interesting, but I can't be sure that what is written there is not a complete lie.

    So where is all that reliable (peer-reviewed) evidence?

29. Roy, you are once again twisting the facts, confusing the authors and even contradicting yourself in the very same message. Since I do not believe that it will be possible to further clarify things and set them on their correctness on this stage (since all attempts so far have failed),
    For example - we are not criticizing the modern journals at all, on the contrary - the very fact that such studies are published in them strengthens the claim I made here in my previous messages about how it is not about "radical ideas" as you tried to present. Since even this trivial detail has not been properly understood, I fail to see how more complicated issues can be clarified over Talkback comments. Therefore it would be better if we stop here.

30. someone,

    I have to agree with you. The discussion gets us nowhere.

    Gillian,

    I believe if you go back and read my comments from the beginning, you will see that nowhere was there any personal insult involved.

    Hanan,

    I thank you for the references to the articles. For the first time, as far as I know, you and Gillian have published such a list of articles / books on the subject, and now we can at least try to be exposed to the materials you are talking about. Since a considerable part of the users of the site have access through universities to the scientific journals in which such materials may be published, there is no reason for the claim you made that "not referring to sources does not lower the level of arguments."

    You claim that I am stupid and that the scientific community does not allow articles to be published on the subject, but in this case, of course, you have to explain why the scientific community allowed and still allows articles to be published on topics that were no less 'taboo' than aliens. For example:
    1. The claim that words of the first human language were discovered (protolanguage theory).
    2. The cold fusion, which the scientific community as a whole received with extreme skepticism.

    Is the material classified by the US government? So why didn't he become famous in Europe? Is it also classified by the European Union (even before the union was even established)? So why wasn't he published in Israel? Is it also classified by the Israeli government?

    Wait, let me rephrase that. Even the Israeli government, which cannot decide whether the sun rises in the morning in the west or in the east, and that any information leaks out of it faster than a filter... Does our Israeli government also classify this important information? And no one understands in the scientific community, except you?
    Now that's a really big claim.

    I will try to go through the free online studies you listed, and even get some of the books. But in order to convince me of claims as big as the ones you presented, I would need very, very, very large proofs, and I find it hard to believe that the studies can provide such.

    By the way, I have already managed to go through the article from Observatory 1995. The article is interesting and unequivocally raises the possibility that the object in question is of alien origin, while providing more convincing and less convincing arguments and an attempt (problematic in my opinion) to calculate the probabilities for the various possibilities. Well, it turns out that the respected scientific journals, such as The Observatory, are actually willing to accept articles about aliens and the like. And if so, what will you complain about?

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

31. There are clear criteria to know if aliens have been discovered
    Proof of extraterrestrial revelation.
    1. Public presentation of an extraterrestrial and the scientific community's proof of its extraterrestrial.
    2. Presenting alien technology in public and proving it to the scientific community.
    3. Reception of extraterrestrial information from space in the field of electromagnetic waves or otherwise
    Its presentation and proof to the scientific community.

    Findings without extraterrestrial revelation
    1. Photo clips, sound, video are not proof of alien detection, anyone could fake it.
    2. Personal or group testimonies about extraterrestrial revelation are not admissible
    (Even with Einstein or the president of the USA they would have testified to an alien experience, so it was not proof)
    3. Traces in the field are not proof of extraterrestrial discovery.

    In conclusion
    All the proofs up to now by researchers of all kinds and associations are nonsense and nonsense that is not worthy of reading and study.

32. There are no aliens on Earth until further notice.

    And for all the aliens who have heard testimonies from psychic people who dreamed that aliens were taking them, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

33. Most of what is written here should have been written on the website
    For children named: "Who started" and not on this site.

34. And remind you:
    Books were also published on racial theory and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
    Just because someone writes a book does not make what they say true.
    The only thing that allows science to enjoy credibility is its requirement for peer review.
    I don't think any sane person would sacrifice this principle just to win your compliments.

35. Hanan:
    There is a recognized scientific press such as Nature, Science and the like.
    They publish research in any field and would be happy to publish serious research on UFOs.
    All the "studies" you are basing on were published personally by people who wanted to publish them or on websites and newspapers that only deal with aliens.
    Contrary to your claim - this is not a conspiracy by the fools of the phenomenon, but a lack of seriousness and fear of peer criticism of its followers.

36. Gillian:
    I didn't kill and I didn't inherit.
    I will not dwell on the fact that you may know and perhaps you have studies that disprove it that I am not a Septem even though this is definitely a good answer because Hanan claimed that I was attacking personally instead of answering the arguments and I showed him that this is not the case.
    Septem expressed his opinion about the much more serious attack made by the children's channel against the children by allowing Hanan to present his doctrine as if it were in consensus.
    If you want to go further, you can say that your whole approach is a personal attack on all scientists.
    I didn't go the whole distance and for me the first thing that contained nothing but a personal attack was your response to Septem's words and all your responses and Hanan's responses from that point on.

37. No one hurled insults at you Roy - all in all I stated facts that you yourself don't deny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you admit in your response to Hanan that "you never have time"? Are you denying that in the past you refused to review studies on Basis of lack of time and that you stated that you have no intention of reviewing them?

    On the other hand, the one who made a personal criticism starting with the most unprofessional and "reasoned" argument - "delusional nonsense", is honorable and not selfish.

    I have to bring you back in front of the same mirror again and hope that you will finally notice that the disqualifier, in his own right, disqualifies.

38. Below are several scientific studies on the subject:

    1. Krauss, Dr. Lawrence Maxwell BEYOND STAR TREK, Basic Books, 1993, 203 pages

    2. Luce, Dr. John S. "Controlled Fusion Propulsion" PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD SYMPOSIUM ON ADVANCED PROPULSION TECHNIQUES, Vol. 1 / Gordon and Breach, New York, 1963 pp343-380

    3. No authors listed "Project Blue Book Special Report #14" 256 pages, 240 tables and charts. Done by Battelle Memorial Institute for USAF, 1955. $25.00 Including S&H from UFORI, POB 958, Houlton, ME 04730-0956

    4. Symposium on UFOs / House Committee on Science and Technology, July 29, 1968, NTIS, PB 179541, 247 pages (testimony of 12 scientists). See also McDonald, Dr. James E., “Congressional Testimony” 71 pages, 41 sightings, $10.00 Includes P&H from UFORI, POB 958, Houlton, ME 04730-0958

    5. Hall, Richard "The UFO Evidence I, 1961, Vol. 2, A Thirty Year Report" Scarecrow press 2001, 650 pages

    6. "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" / Univ. of Colorado, directed by Dr. EU Condon 1969 (963 pages), Bantam Books. 30% of 117 cases unexplainable.

    7. Hynek, Dr. J. Allan "The UFO Experience", Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1973

    8. The Cometa Report "UFOs and Defense: What Should We Prepare For." 90-page English Translation of French Report, 1999, $10.00 From UFORI includes S&H.

    9. Friedman, Stanton Terry and Berliner, Donald “Crash at Corona: The Definitive Study of the Roswell Incident” Anniversary Edition, 1997, Marlow Books, Autographed. $15.00 From UFORI.

    10. Weiner, Tim "Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget," Warner Books, 1990, 288 pages

    11. Paul R. Hill – Unconventional Flying Objects – a scientific analysis (1995).

    12. Stanto Friedman – Flying Saucers and Science (2008).

    Additional studies can be found online, among others, on the website of the association named after Prof. Heinke:

    http://www.cufos.org/pubs.html

    Hanan

39. 1. Since studies usually appear in the literature and do not just circulate on the net, it is not easy to upload or scan them (there is a considerable amount). Some of them, unfortunately, cannot be published, although they can be presented to an audience at conferences or privately (for example, studies dealing with silicon lumps discovered at landing sites in Israel). In any case, in the next response, I will present a reference to a small part of studies.

    The claim about lowering the value of the claims is misplaced, since most of the scientific research in the world is published in statements and not freely and free of charge on the Internet. It would be like asking for a copy of all the original studies, about which articles have been written on this site.

    2. As for astronomers. A few studies have been published in scientific astronomical journals, even though astronomers have photographed and documented UFOs. Most cases will not be published, just as scientific journals will refuse to publish material concerning UFOs. The information is known from testimonies of astronomers.

    One study that was published at the time, and may be found online, was published in the astronomical journal "OBSERVATORY" in April 1996, and titled "SETA and 1991 vg". This article started a long debate, which has not ended - whether an asteroid was recorded or something else entirely.

    As for other scientists from other fields, some publish their research in books (such as Dr. Roger Lear, or Prof. Alan Heinke) and some simply testify in front of the cameras about their research (see a partial list of scientists on the DISCLOSURE PROJECT website).

    In addition, don't be silly Roy. Do you think they will let any scientist publish research on any subject they see fit? Do you know any published studies on Israel's nuclear weapons stockpiles that contain scientific proof of its existence or non-existence? Are you familiar with widely published scientific articles on topics related to secret security research? All the more so on this topic, most of which is classified as a whole, those who are already researching it (and I know the names of scientists from Israel who have researched and are researching the topic) will not publish the findings in Rish Gali.

    One way or another, I would be happy to refer you, for example, to Prof. Yehuda Hiss's research, regarding findings from Achihud. Since it is a document published on the Internet, I suppose it is possible.

    3. When I mean independent studies, I mean studies conducted by research institutions that are not directly subordinate to the government.

    The reference to scientific sources, in the following response...

    Hanan

40. It is absolutely possible that there are aliens and it is possible (even if in a pinch, according to the theory
    the science that dominates today), that they can cross space-time
    and jump to us; If so (that is, that they have such superior technologies
    about ours) - it is likely that they will be able to hide their existence and identity;
    But if all of the above is true - then we have no ability to cope anyway
    technologically with them and with their abilities and therefore as long as they want to hide
    From our point of view (and this - if only for the sake of argument, what they are currently doing),
    We are unable to discover them, get to know them - and in the end also discuss them
    A matter-of-fact discussion of the possibility that there are intelligent aliens near us.

    In other words: the debate is a faith debate - and unnecessary on the dealer's website
    in science.

41. Indeed, Gillian - this is my task and my greatest pleasure in life, to make a hucha and italula out of you. And not only that, but I also want to attract and waste your time.

    To remind you, until now I have spent a lot of my precious time writing detailed and reasoned responses, instead of hurling personal criticism and insults at those who disagree with my opinion.

42. Hanan,

    An internet forum is not an indication of research, but it is appropriate to refer to studies when you firmly assert your justification. When you don't, it devalues ​​the claims.

    Regarding the astronomers, if they had seen a case that really and truly cannot be explained, I believe that they would have published an article on the subject. In a Google scholar search on Aliens and/or UFOs I did not find even one article that takes the phenomenon seriously or documents scientists who were exposed to it.

    There is never time, but I would love to be exposed to your list of independent scientific studies (what does independent mean, by the way?).

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

43. Hanan - there is no point in conveying anything and half to Mr. Cezana - he is wasting our time and making us a hoka and italola, he has no intentions of reading the material, as he has already stated himself in the past, this is now just his way of trying to waste time and argue in a ridiculous and futile way.

    Mr. Cezana would do well to look at himself in the mirror and ask himself if this is the face of a scientist.

44. And Michael: You murdered and also inherited??? How dare you complain about personal attacks when SEPTEM was the first to attack, black on a forum, accept with a committee??? Simply amazing.

45. Roy:

    1. Since when is an internet forum an indication for research?

    2. Why do you think astronomers haven't seen or reported UFOs?

    And unfortunately, if you don't remember, already a few months ago, I directed you to a partial list of scientific studies and directed you to those who have physical findings in Israel.

    At the time you answered me that you don't have time to deal with it, so you don't have time to check the data...

    Are you currently free to check some of the data? If so, I would be happy to publish or forward to you directly a very partial list of independent scientific studies, which have been conducted over the years (including an article published in Betaun for Astronomy a few years ago). All are obtainable or purchasable.

    In addition, Stanton Friedman's book was published these days (you can find the entry on it in the Hebrew Wikipedia), which deals with the same scientific studies and physical findings.

    This is for starters.

    If you would like a specific reference to a certain topic or a certain event, I will refer you to specific studies. The subject is very broad, and just as you cannot learn about the science of medicine just by wandering through the forums, so is this case as well.

    Hanan Sabat
    http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

46. I wonder Roy, if this is the constant mantra of all the deniers of all kinds, who don't bother to check the facts for sure - you are not the first one I come across who claims that he did not receive evidence and studies after such things were presented to him time and time again.

    Since this is the case - there is no point in bringing links for the hundred and one time, after you have chosen to ignore them the previous hundred times.

    The debate on your part is not scientific, it is not serious and it is not relevant and since that is the case - it is better to stop it here and now and if you are still interested - it would be best if you visit the association's website where you can get all the information.

47. Roy, every word is in stone

48. Gillian,

    You misunderstand, and rush to categorize people. The day when the 'extraterrestrial idea' becomes part of science due to unequivocal evidence, I will not be happy. And how is it possible otherwise?
    I wish to meet an alien - to study its biology, its metabolism, its psychology and sociology. How did he develop? What are the living conditions to which you had to adapt? What is his habitat? What society did the aliens form? Is it possible to conclude from their existence and the way they think about moral laws that are common to all existing creatures? What is his technology and what can be learned from it? Did the aliens influence the development of societies on Earth? Did they affect human evolution? These ideas will make any true scientist literally drool.

    but…
    I also require proof. And meanwhile, Gillian, in every argument that was here you just came out with the claim that - "You don't understand anything, and you are not real scientists. If you had invested in the field all the years I have, you would be convinced!"

    So forgive me if I'm still not convinced, because no matter how much you shout at scientists and researchers, this argument can't convince anyone. And no, not even your cries of rage and comparing us to the Spanish Inquisition.

    So I entered your forum and went through the messages and reports. I'm still not convinced. I was looking for material online. I'm still not convinced. It's true, I didn't invest years in the search, but if things are as clear as you say, you certainly don't need whole years of investment in the subject!

    There are 8,000 registered astronomers who spend thirty nights a year looking at the stars and the sky. Where is their evidence? Why don't any of them report UFOs? Maybe they just know how to recognize natural phenomena like Venus or lightning balls better than most people? Do you really believe that the scientific community can silence 8,000 scientists who wish to publish results and articles before everyone else?

    If there are so many scientific findings, as you claim, why don't you link some of them to us? Give me a review - a review article - to read. If not, it's not because the scientific community is ignoring you. Note how many scientific articles there are about the idea that life originated outside the Earth, for example, even though this idea was assigned in the scientific community from the beginning. And yet scientists talked about it freely and dealt with it, looked for data about it and conducted studies based on the same idea. Where are all these articles about UFOs and aliens?

    In conclusion, the scientific community may not be too open to innovations and unusual ideas, but every interesting idea gets attention and a small group of scientists who investigate it in depth. Link me to their research, and I'll be happy to read and keep up to date. Maybe that's how we'll get out of the series of slanders you keep shouting here, without providing a real link.

    Shabbat Shalom to all of us,

    Roy.

49. Hanan and Gillian:
    Ignoring reality is probably a sweeping feature that does not only concern the attitude towards aliens.
    Let's review the relevant part of the discussion from start to finish:
    Comment 13 - Septem's comment - complains about Hanan Sabat's appearance on the children's channel. The whole discussion took place up to a certain point (and for me it continues to take place even after that point) based on the assumption that what Septem said is true. No one said at that stage, for example, that Hanan presented things in a balanced way (and I still tend to assume, as mentioned, that he really did not).
    Immediately after, in response 16 came Gillian's personal attack on Septem.
    The first personal attack and another one that has no content except profanity.
    In response 17 I came to Septem's defense. As mentioned, this happened before any argument worth attacking came up from your side - just garbage. Nevertheless, I made sure to attack the idea more than you.
    Here comes your 18th response which remained completely personal - again - no defense of any idea or its justification - just garbage.
    Response 19 by Gillian Hartha followed you and as usual - did not add any information. Note, at this stage there are still no arguments of your own that can be attacked at all because you have not raised any argument - you have only blasphemed.
    In answer 20, Roy repeated what I said when Septem raised the issue in a previous discussion - that is - the one who is really to blame here is the children's channel because you are who you are and the channel should have known this.
    My father's response 21 strongly supports the same claim and by the way the praise for not selling additional nonsense (which is not entirely accurate) also indicated that you are close to this nonsense, a dangerous proximity.
    In response 22 I stayed on the subject of the discussion and clarified the difference between this website and a TV show.
    I also expressed my opinion (up to that point you did not bring any argument against it) that the aliens claim is not true.
    In addition, I responded to your wrong and unfounded claim that I have no idea or half an idea on the subject.
    In response 23 Gillian again emptied the Jura without saying anything.
    I expressed my opinion on this in response 24.
    In response 25 Roy returns and explains why the action of the children's channel is delusional nonsense.
    In response 26 I asked a riddle. It can be seen as a direct continuation of response 24 because it refers to the same context and you haven't said anything yet.
    Then Hanan comes in response 27 and writes - no less and no more - the following words:
    "Well Michael, when you can't attack the subject and the information brought by us, you start directly attacking the person who brings the information??? This is an exercise for beginners in the field of demagoguery."
    So allow me, Hanan, to ask:
    What information did you bring other than the information about your willingness to personally attack anyone who dares to join the majority of the scientific community that rejects your words with disgust?
    In the continuation of this response you returned to the description of the conspiracy theory and invited the only compliment you received (from my father) during the discussion.
    Then, in response 29 - Gillian remained Gillian.

50. Michael - he put on a bold face, but also a basic lack of reading comprehension combined with delusional pretentiousness, it's definitely too much for me as well.

    I suggest you read again, and carefully, everything written by Hanan and me in this article (you can skip the recommendations for hiking with high blood pressure) before you jump in and put words in our mouths that have never been said, and used only in your fevered mind.

    And to Roy - the program on the children's channel was strictly a scientific program - it was explained to the children exactly what constitutes hypotheses and what constitutes facts, and the extraneous "idea" has long since ceased to be "extraordinary" - much to my chagrin, this is how I understand it, but this is the reality.

    What is very unfortunate in my view is, as mentioned, that people who claim to be scientists and researchers, exhibit the behavior and perception of rabbis and clerics when they are caught up in their personal beliefs and prejudices and for this reason do not examine the scientific findings.

51. I would have fun going to the children's channel to explain a little about science.
    One of the research questions that will interest children the most is "Why doesn't the moon fall into the earth, and why does it not fall into the sun"
    Then you can present many interesting topics related to that which I will detail later, because I have to go..

52. Well Michael, when you can't attack the subject and the information brought by us, you start directly attacking the person who brings the information??? This is an exercise for beginners in the field of demagoguery.

    And if you bothered to check what we said in the past, or say today, we never said that all scientists ignore the research in this field, but we said that the established academy prefers to ignore this information and research, since it is a security issue. In the world the situation is less problematic than in Israel.

    And you will have no shadow of a doubt. This is not a unique issue that is being ignored and scorned. Any topic that is not "politically correct" or does not agree with the opinion of the heads of academia, politics, and those whose hand is on the switch for the distribution of funds for research, will be immediately ostracized, confiscated, scorned, and ignored.

    It is enough to see the issue of global warming. There are tens of thousands of scientists in the world who claim that this is a natural process that has not been affected by human hands beyond a negligible level. Since this is an issue against which an international campaign is conducted by individuals such as Al Gore and politically powerful groups, then scientists who claim otherwise from the "spirit of the group and its private beliefs" are condemned to be ignored, their research is not published and they are simply confiscated by the established scientific community. The established academy behaves in such cases as a religious sect for all intents and purposes.

    But as they say, time is the best healer. Scientific truths eventually come to light, even if most scientists oppose them in the first place. Theories that seemed delusional find themselves at the top of the consensus, even if it takes a long time.

    And in Israel, since we are still lagging behind the world in many areas, then everything that changed in relation to the first world a decade ago (such as the approach to scientific research on the subject of UFOs), will probably happen here in 10-15 years.

    In one thing we are definitely a leader, and some of the above responses will testify to this - refuting arguments without providing a research basis or any basis, arrogance, impudence, boldness, excessive self-confidence and the thought that we know everything about everything.

    At least we are based on research (for better or for worse). We do not throw arguments into the air without having research or substantiation behind them.
    If you want to attack the subject - do it with scientific tools and appropriate language.

53. Puzzle:
    Why is more forehead boldness ("forehead boldness" in alien) necessary?
    To claim without foundation that all scientists ignore reality - or to claim that whoever makes the above claim is wrong?

    The prize for correct solvers (healthy laughter) will be awarded by.
    The prize for solving a mistake (a day in the alien hybrid partition) will be awarded by Gillian.

54. Gillian,

    I condemned the action of the children's channel as 'delusional nonsense' without referring to your claims and your evidence. The theory you propose is extremely pretentious and has far-reaching effects on people's way of life and thinking, and it should not be presented to children as the truth without examining its weak points as well. It should also be noted that the scientific community is largely opposed to it and it is appropriate to present things from this point of view as well.
    If I were the head of the children's channel, I would not invite a person who would publish a controversial theory in public without also inviting a scientist who would present the common opinion in the scientific community today. I hope you also understand the problem that will arise if the children's channel invites Scientologists, Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Buddhist converts, or scientists who support unusual theories (for example, that vitamins are harmful to health, or that meat is poison) for a marketing-interview without reservations.

    For this reason, I argue that, especially on a channel dedicated to children, who have not yet developed a sufficiently skeptical mind, there is a need for scientific criticism to be passed on unusual ideas. And hence the children's channel definitely committed 'delusional nonsense' when they invited Hanan who supports the theory defined as radical, without inviting another person who would serve as a balance from the other side of the barrier.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

55. Gillian:
    I will not miss your factual responses because I have never seen you write a factual response, an internet "researcher" like you.

56. Roy,

    I'm sorry - I don't agree with you at all. No emotions are involved here, only research and logic. Illusory nonsense? I would expect you, as someone who claims to be a researcher and scientist, to at least respect the opinions of other researchers and not call them "delusional nonsense" - the very fact that you use expressions of this kind, in my view, greatly undermines your status as a serious researcher and makes me suspect that someone who feeds on strong emotions is actually You, in the "hat burns on the thief's head" exam.

    Michael - I don't know what audacity makes you declare that our opinion is wrong, one thing is certain - no scientific research or science is behind this declaration. Apart from that, pretending to be someone who understands better, automatically puts you in the same suspicious line as someone who knows nothing and half a thing, and covers up the one who denies his knowledge by puffing his chest and bragging, in the "little dog barks a lot" way, and of course characteristics of clerics and rabbis. Therefore - your words do not deserve any substantive response whatsoever, neither now nor in the future

    And my dear father - indeed, all those mystics, communicators and other shameful sources as you chose to call them, are definitely harmful to the field and the evidence, most of the commenters here are unable to differentiate at all and frequently confuse the creators. Therefore I congratulate you that you succeeded.

    At the same time, I wonder how people who claim to be scientists are not able to make this diagnosis.

57. Hanan and Gillian:
    You may have noticed that no one has ever complained about being allowed to speak on this site.
    Disagree with your opinion - of course - because overall it is wrong, but do not complain that you continue to try to convince.
    The reason for this "permissiveness" is that every time you say something, the stage is open for people who understand better than you what you claim they have no idea about, to present the correct opinion.
    This protects the visitors of the site - and especially the children among them (because children tend for evolutionary reasons to believe adults) from brainwashing.
    In the children's channel, the situation is different. It is possible that from time to time a scientist also appears in it, but because of the time differences it cannot be considered a balancing act for the children who were hurt by your words. If their parents were not with them while watching - they may still leave the program with a superstition for the rest of their lives.

58. Don't go far, yesterday at Odette's again the man of the Scientology cult starred. This time at the head of a volunteer organization that heals children through the touch of their hands.
    There is nothing to expect from the Israeli media to support science, they didn't just cut billions of shekels without any criticism to the universities, because today there are no reporters who understand this in any media.
    A generation of ignorant people is being raised here. Of course, I have no objection to programs about UFOs. Books on the subject also stimulated my imagination and got me interested in space, but this is also due to the fact that there were enough popular scientific books that told what the scientific side was (not only books rich in data and formulas, but also the things translated by Yitzhak Levanon and more). Today there is almost no such alternative. In the age of the Internet, compared to the few websites that deal with science (even if we expand the canvas to include the websites of the magazines, Snonit, Mtah, the websites of the universities, Wikipedia and of course the science) there are endless websites of mysticism, New Age and other Bishin sources.
    In this matter, I actually support Hanan and Gillian who knew how to separate themselves from those who also claim spiritual connections with aliens who were in the previous association where they were members.
    But the point is that in the end the mystics and religious men of sorts have much more power, both in money and in human resources. The scientists are busy with their work and are not so inclined to volunteer to distribute their interesting materials. The television producers employ people as investigators without any threshold conditions.
    There is of course no problem with a program about aliens, but it should also reflect scientific knowledge and not ignore it. You can actually tell beautiful stories and show the hypothetical creatures that float in the Cosmos series in the atmosphere of Jupiter (and even Carl Sagan had some nice things to say about aliens) or invite an astrobiologist to tell about the conditions on planets outside the solar system. I'm sure the children are not as stupid as those in charge of their education or entertainment.

59. Hanan and Gillian,

    I guess you will agree with me that you have a great emotional involvement in the subject of aliens, and it is not easy to see things from a neutral point of view when strong emotions are involved.

    Therefore, let me present you with a question. Let's say that one of the scientists who was involved in research on vitamins (which was published in Science some time ago) was invited to the program on the children's channel. He would explain how the vitamins are harmful to us, why you should not take food supplements and why this information should be passed on to parents as quickly as possible.
    Beyond that, he would also ignore any controversy that exists on this matter in science, and would present the whole issue as if his knowledge was the commonplace and the only one in the scientific community.
    What would you say then?

    Such an example, by the way, is another 'easy' one. I shudder to think that the children's channel, in most of its folly, might invite some religious man to distribute his wares to the children without hindrance. Because the book 'The Tibetan Living Dead' really has good evidence for its existence. Scientific, even. The entire scientific community agrees with them, except for a few lonely weeds.

    and for Septem,

    As Hanan said, you have nothing to be upset about. You should be outraged at the children's channel that did this delusional nonsense. Hanan is 'crazy for talking', and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that - many scientists are crazy about their research and are convinced of their rightness. The problem is that when a TV channel brings the opinion of these people on the screen, it has to be aware that they are very biased and also bring the opposite side to soften their claims.

    And last but not least, dear Moshe Bharlesh,

    As you have already been suggested, you should read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Garden, or Sagan's Traces of the Past, or many other books dealing with the subject of evolution. And contrary to what you were told, always try to think about things yourself and understand where the logic is in them. And if you don't find it, maybe there is an opening here to rethink things in the scientific community, or to conduct research around them.

    Have a nice weekend everyone,

    Roy.

60. Definitely Michael - the disease must be treated long before it breaks out, there is no doubt about that. The same is true, by the way, also regarding the disease of persecution.

    That's why I recommended to SEPTEM to immediately treat the high blood pressure from which he suffers before further complications develop and in view of what you wrote, I would also recommend you to preempt medicine for the blow since without any connection to us - your reaction is hysterical, out of proportion and definitely indicates a vague perception of reality (and I don't want to say things sharper, the language of your comment speaks for itself).

    By the way, for those who still don't know, Hanan and Anchi are the chairmen of EURA, the Israeli association for the study of UFOs and extraterrestrial life, the only research-scientific body in Israel in the field.

61. SEPTEM and Michael - if your blood pressure has risen, you may contact the channel's management, who invited me, and complain, or take a pill, or both. To be honest, I was surprised that some of the "wise men of the generation" had not yet been called out to scream in the channel's ears.

    And as for expressing my opinion on a field that I have been researching for over 18 years, especially when it comes from someone who has no idea or half an idea of ​​what it is about, then your response is not worthy of reference at all.

    Hanan Sabat
    http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

62. September:
    Don't take my age seriously. Her response is purely due to shared interests with Hanan. See what the site is attached to her name.

    Gilly:
    Do you think it would be better for Septem to ignore the fact that the children are being worked on in the children's channel only to meet them later as sleepwalking adults?
    In my opinion, it is better to identify the danger at an early stage and do what is possible to prevent the disease and not be required to treat it after it has already broken out.

63. Blood pressure SEPTEM, it's dangerous - it can cause a stroke and other shameful things, so allow me to recommend that you first avoid disturbing your nerves by avoiding watching it on television, including the children's channel and the history channel. Maybe in this difficult period you should settle for the sleepy first channel.

    Beyond that - for hypertensive conditions of the type you describe, Cordoral (alpha receptor blocker) treatment is recommended, and it is a redeeming feature.

64. To Moshe in Kharelash
    You can look at the problem you raised from several aspects.
    A. The philosophical aspect - you probably have a sense of contradiction between science and religion. What do you think of the following sentence: "God created evolution". On deep thought, is this sentence likely to resolve the seeming contradiction between science and religion?
    B. The social aspect is political - the religious establishment (hereafter "the rabbis") will fight any abstract scientific idea for two reasons: 1. It sees secularism and science as a threat to its existence, conceptually and economically. That is why the "rabbis" are fighting a war with science and secularism, which for them is a war of existence. But they are unable to fight against scientific and technological achievements (for example: electricity, computers, space flights, etc.) therefore they focus their war on the abstract scientific theories, where the scientific theory does not present them with a decisive and immediate technological achievement. Evolution, archeology, astronomy, cosmology and even microbiology and more... are examples of theories
    Sciences that are easy for the rabbis to fight against, because they deal with distances and times that are long and distant or very small and short that cannot be observed immediately by the senses. This way it is easier for them to convince their religious, religious audience. This audience, because it believes in them and mostly lacks the educational tools to question their "truth", elects them to the Knesset and gives them political power and budgets.

65. per person
    What is so bad about "trust the scientists", the alternative is - trust the clergy, the politicians and the contracts in the stars. Choose who you want to trust. I chose scientists.

66. You already raised our blood pressure for new players when you went to the children's channel to tell about the different species of aliens and their "anti-gravity" aircraft, as if there is a consensus about things among the scientific community.
    Of course, you have a consensus, and if not, then "the government is hiding" or they are "afraid of innovations".

    It was really low.

67. Regarding the comments on JUNK DNA:

    In recent years, it is becoming increasingly clear that these are segments that are really wrong to call them "garbage". They contain different genes, some of which are unknown to us and whose products are unknown. There are currently several studies that raise the possibility that some of them may be activated in different people.

    In addition, there is more and more evidence that the same segments participate in one way or another in different control mechanisms.

    There are several other studies on the subject, which concern my work in the field of UFO and alien research. I will not discuss them here, in order not to raise the blood pressure of the dear surfers...

    Hanan Sabat
    http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

68. She doesn't need respect, she needs to be listened to.

69. Michael:
    Not quite my taste, but honor is in its place.

70. Fountain:
    I don't know if it is according to the article.
    It is clear that part of what is called junk DNA (which by the way - it is not entirely clear what is really junk - DNA segments can be useful even if they are not replicated into a protein - for example by determining the spatial configurations of the molecule) is the result of the duplication of existing genes and it is also clear that some of it may become functional Some day. This was clear even before the present study.
    If I understand the purpose of the research correctly, then there was no intention here to reveal a new and unfamiliar mechanism, but to point out the centrality of an old and familiar mechanism.

71. According to the article, is it possible to conclude that junk DNA in the human body is a product of the copies mentioned in the article that, with a little luck, will become genes in future generations?

72. A person:
    And what about classical music?

73. Nice to hear doubt.
    It's not nice to hear sentences like "trust the scientists".

74. Moshe in Haralsh

    Maybe I can fix your eyes a bit.

    Start with evolution, go through all the development until you get a human, continue with it to a more and more developed human, to one that produces robots and continue to a human that produces thinking and self-aware robots, go from there to a human that produces robots that are at least partially made of proteins, and finally move from there to conscious robots that produce from proteins in the human image.
    Now, what do you think the aforementioned robots would answer if they were asked how they were created?
    Will they say that evolution created them, or will they say that God in the name of Adam created them?
    I showed you that there doesn't have to be a contradiction and creationism can be a continuation of evolution.
    You could start the whole course of reaction not from evolution but from God and you would actually reach the same result.

    By the way, contrary to your opinion, I think that 13.7 billion years is definitely enough for the development of a person in evolution.

    pleasant thoughts
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

75. To Moshe in Kharelash
    Read Dawkins' books, "The Selfish Garden" and "The Blind Watchman" and then you will be convinced of the correctness of evolution. Do not trust your senses and your own logic, they are not relevant to this matter. Trust the scientists.

76. Moshe Bharlash:
    Your request cannot be met even in principle.
    How do you want them to prove that a process without intelligent intention (which you call random even though it is not) can over the course of hundreds of millions of years create life and over the course of billions of years create intelligent life?
    You are talking about an experiment that should last billions of years because any attempt to shorten it is an intelligent intervention.
    On the other hand, the process of evolution is a proven mathematical process that works not only in animals and here on this site many examples of observations that showed evolution that is not microevolution were presented.
    You can read about some more here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf

    Not long ago an article appeared here about "cells" that were produced synthetically in a process that could have occurred in the ancient world without difficulty.
    At the same time, they are working on a synthetic creation of the DNA of a bacterium that has no equivalent in nature (search for Mycoplasma labratorium on Wikipedia).

    The fossil evidence gives a lot more (but a lot!) of evidence.
    The DNA imaging evidence that every rabbi is willing to accept as admissible evidence to prove identity or kinship in the courts, also testifies to the genetic kinship between a horse and a donkey and between us and the chimpanzee.

    What else would you expect?!

77. Friends, if you want proof of evolution, look up (on the page).
    Micro-evolution is nonsense of the scumbags. There is no real separation between species, for example see the duck a furry mammal with a beak that lays eggs.
    It is impossible for a human being to try to imagine a time span of billions of years, so rely on logic rather than emotion

78. Every time the subject of evolution is mentioned, I get a severe chill, and I will explain,
    I start with a question from the age of 19, today I am 24 years old, with a broad and deep view of reality and everyday life, as well as the entire recorded history of something like 6000 years,
    "I" seem to be the perfect genius because as of right now there is no entity of any kind that manages or interferes in our universe, and even before all the proofs that leave no rational place for religion and the Bible, which are a main part of my new concept,
    I mean there is no God I live this logic and as it seems to me there is no way that my mind will ever change, (except if I try hallucinogens or something)
    But there is one thing that sticks in my mind like an endless loop, that confuses me, and that I keep thinking about, and that is...
    Fucking how how how the hell we were made, a cruel puzzle that gives no rest,
    On the one hand, saying God is simply a poor joke for many reasons that are visible to the emotion and the eye, God will not help us here period,
    On the other hand, evolution seems too problematic,
    I mean, I'm constantly trying to think of, say, life started from one living cell, and it's like a children's crashing car that creates variations of accidents of reproduction and development,
    It doesn't work out for me that life got to what it got in a period of 14 billion years, that's just not enough time for a random process to reach this amazing complexity, I would think of micro evolution and natural selection of at least trillions of years to
    To reach the head of a fleshy potato with a mouth that only knows how to eat and shit in order to survive and let's not talk about the receptors of the tongue to enjoy the food, have the scientists tried to calculate the chances of such a development at a given rate of time,
    I don't know, I've been constantly trying to speculate how such a situation is possible that in a random process we got our form, our capabilities, our biological technologies, and it would simply be banal to detail our complexity,
    Guys I'm in trouble!!! Will the moment come when science really proves that programming created a human being and even a cat with a few burnt pixels in the left eye in a random process?, otherwise I will start whipping up theories of parallel universes or some existence that exists on a different scale from us that created us,
    Or maybe it's an infinity of backwards coincidences that brought us this far, or that evolution didn't create enough intelligence for us to understand how we evolved, in short I know I didn't say anything,
    Is there anyone here who is less in trouble than me??? So please tell me about it
    ,

    Right now I don't accept either the theory of God or the theory of evolution, they are simply the same thing, without proof! (except micro evolution)

    Many thanks to those who will respond to my eyes without slandering or offending my ignorance!

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