Dr. Assaf Rosenthal, a long-time nature lover and environmental researcher, answers the evolution deniers who flood articles on the subject with talkbacks taken from false claims of Christian preachers
The debate about the essence of evolution often arises on the scientist website when the supporters try to explain to the opponents the correctness of the "theory". And I repeat and call the debate "deaf discourse", since a fact is not an assumption and a process is not a theory that can be contradicted or debunked.
When Columbus set sail in search of the short sea route to India, it was already clear that he would not fall when he reached the end, nor would he meet the turtle on whose back the world rests. The fact that the earth is round was already accepted. Although to this day there are believers who "think" otherwise - the fact is indisputable.
When Galileo Galilei stomped his foot and said "and yet move on move" he was describing a fact and not a theory. Copernicus defined the fact that the sun is in the center of the (small) system and the satellites (including the earth) move around it and Galileo confirmed this. Since then there have been attempts and successes to explain how the fact exists, how the process works. There are no attempts and there is no possibility to contradict the existence of the fact.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, when the question arose: how do marine fossils reach the tops of mountains and how do the same types of animals and plants exist on distant continents, the assumption or theory developed that the continents move. Since then the fact has become clear that indeed it is - the continents move and there is even an explanation for the process that causes the continents to move apart (and closer) over millions of years.
That is, what began as a theory turned out to be a factual process. To this day there are attempts to explain the process and its causes. These attempts are theories, but once the fact became clear and we became aware of the process that causes it, there is no place or possibility to contradict it and it takes on the status of an axiom in mathematics.
Konrad Lorenz who saw how goose chicks that hatch from their egg follow the first bone they see claimed the concept of imprinting. Signing is a process that many try to explain. Theories can be developed as to why the process happens but no one tries to contradict the phenomenon.
When Wallace and Darwin identified (each separately) the many forms in which animals develop, they both tried to understand the process and Darwin called the process evolution. Darwin recognized the process by which species and subspecies are formed. It was necessary to explain the process and Darwin developed the theory that what drives evolution is "natural selection". After that he called the "engine" "survival of the fittest" and later tried to explain the process with "sexual selection". It turned out that probably each of the theories developed by Darwin in his attempt to explain the process "catch" and they all work in combination.
Much later, Richard Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene" in which he puts forward the theory that evolution is driven by genes that "have an interest in continuing their existence".
Even today there are researchers who try to develop different theories that will contradict previous theories and explain the process called evolution in a different way. Everyone is busy with theories to explain evolution, to explain the process and not the fact of its existence. You can try and disprove assumptions and theories, but to try and disprove facts or processes is equivalent to the Inquisition for Copernicus.
In many cases sentences along the lines of "I believe" appear. I have already written before that with faith there is no need and no possibility to argue (arguing against faith is deaf discourse). Still, the "creationists" or those who seek "intelligent design" would do well to understand the difference between a theory that tries to explain a process and the process itself. Now I have given the fools an argument, because the seekers of "creationism" or "intelligent planning" will come and claim that the one who controls the process is the same "sovereign". Still, this is a small step forward, since now the debate will not be about the process, not about the existence of evolution - but about its causes.
Now the ideas of "creationism" and "intelligent planning" which are based on faith and not on science, will stand against sexual selection, natural selection and the selfish gene which are based on scientific theories. This will be a step that will promote the "evolutionists" that should change the approach to the debate. A change that will clarify the existence of a process that creates facts, since evolution is not a theory but a process that establishes facts, "and facts cannot be argued with."
73 תגובות
Hello miracles!
A definition of momentum is the result of mass times velocity. Whether it is an electron particle or whether it is a large system. and is actually a vector.
De Broy stated that the momentum of a particle is equal to Planck's constant divided by the wavelength.
The law of conservation of momentum means that if two objects collide then the speed of XNUMX of them changes. And calculating the sum of the momentum of the two bodies before the collision is equal to the sum of the momentum after the collision. (in case the kinetic energies were conserved).
Regarding speed there is a law called the law of persistence. Regarding the particle, the speed changes because a force is applied to it. So speed matters. Ask even my father.
Group: It is an abstract/or non-abstract group containing a finite/or non-finite number of members. which can be applied to any two members in the group a (defined) operation such as connection (the operation can be abstract) and must exist because the received member belongs to the group. I took the concept of the group as an image, in order to raise the bewilderment of how the many and vast complex of "evolutionary transformations" are in the field of the group.
If the chimpanzee is 96% human for you then I expect in the top 4 percent to meet at least 10 transformations some of which are close to 100%.
Below is an example of drafting rules:
One of Kepler's laws: the planets move in elliptical orbits and the sun is at one of their foci.
Newton's law of universal gravitation: two material particles whose masses are m1 m2 and the distance between them is r attract each other with a force F that is directly proportional to m1 and m2 and inversely proportional to the distance squared.
I look forward to such a biological formulation.
When you talk about an external energy source what exactly do you mean?
As far as the theory of evolution goes, for me there are a large number of points in space, some in a dense area and some in a sparse area, some of the numbers are distant at a fixed distance from a certain point. And some of them are Fibonacci numbers. and the claim that all numbers lie on a certain curve. And I claim that the above claim is only a hypothesis.
And if there are few species that lay eggs and one butterfly with a horn on its head. It is still only a given.
Please define a sequence of transformations on a certain creature that we can examine in the next 100 years in which they occur.
Yossi Simon
Know something I forgot - momentum is not derived from speed and mass. Massless motion is possible. Distinguish between the way of calculation and the essence.
Yossi Simon
I will try to shorten…
Speed is not a quality in itself, but it expresses a change in place. Momentum has a practical meaning. Just an example - there are no conservation laws for speed, but there are conservation laws for momentum.
A group is a group that has an action that leaves each member within the group. Life is not like that at all.
There is no creature that is 99% human, but there is a creature that is 96% human - it's called a chimpanzee. I suggest you read a bit about it. I don't know specifically but I'm sure there are a number of creatures that are 50% human.
Yossi, you owe it to yourself to learn what the theory of evolution says!!!! The species differ discretely. Only if you go back in time will you find continuous changes. You always mess it up 🙂
Indeed there are universal laws of biology. You are confusing your lack of knowledge with assertions of things that don't exist. I have repeatedly explained that the laws of evolution (variation + competition + heredity and evolution) are universal. There are also other rules. For example - the reproduction rate is exponential, an external energy source is needed, a living creature is limited in volume and time, etc.
I will mention another law (by James Lovelock) which says that on any planet that has life, it will be possible to see that there is life there on a global level: we will see a chemical composition that does not make sense otherwise.
And regarding a single intelligent species - this of course depends on our definition of intelligence. My point is that we are the only species that has a sense of language. No other species has language, at least we haven't found out to date. Language is not a collection of words, because it is in nature. Language also has grammar - and today there is no known species that has grammar. Hence my argument.
Now, note that there are other species that have unique properties. There are a very small number of mammals that lay eggs. There is only one bird that has no wings at all, there are very few species that have the ability to electrocute to death.
If (or rather, when) man becomes extinct, I am not at all sure that another species will open a language. This is a hypothesis, but quite plausible.
And regarding time - time is not an absolute concept, there is no such thing as "the state of the universe at a given moment". Therefore the whole idea of Laplace's demon is wrong.
Hello miracles! Hello commenters!
See miracles!
First, I read very carefully what you write, simply within the framework of this site it is difficult to comment on every sentence.
For example, where did you write that momentum has a physical meaning and speed has no physical meaning, but maybe you forgot that momentum is derived from speed and mass?
Please separate the news from the movement!
The particles or any other material object (like the asteroid) do not "know" and are not supposed to know where they are moving and what the future holds for them, they simply move. There is also no need to know the calculation and how it is performed. And our knowledge or lack of knowledge has absolutely no effect (that is not physical) on the movement of the particles.
what yes The scientists were able to develop a mathematical model based on a small number of laws that describe the interactions between the different particles. In this model, a graph is drawn (albeit very complex), and the claim that there is a complete correspondence between the graph and the position of the particles in the abstract space for any given time. And here too, knowing the graph or not knowing the graph is not a condition for movement. Don't forget one of the most important rules in physics is the subject of objectivity.
If I'm not mistaken, I also respond in the name of B. I claim this (because the moving body is not supposed to know) and I agree to that.
Now instead of messing with the particles you can only refer to the graph. For us at the moment the trajectory of the graph is as random as a person who has been in the thick of the earth for a long time does not know if it is day or night. Therefore, it is permissible to refer to the behavior of the graph statistically. (I also personally do not think that the world is deterministic, but that is not relevant to the discussion)
Regarding the term "herd", I thought that you encountered the terms "herd", "circle", "field" as part of your studies, I probably do not recommend that you take a course and deal with exercises, it only sharpens your mind. Then you will understand the conceptual connection.
(A group cannot define itself as root 2 does not define itself).
Now I've reached the point where I really can't understand your line of thought. If you are not convinced that in a "repeated experiment" of world development, a person will be created, it means that the entire process of the current world is random. And since the whole theory of evolution is only a kind of proposed explanation for all the findings: man, cat, ant, fossil, tree, dinosaur.
The explanation can be examined in terms of probability.
Now understand that not accepting the theory does not negate the findings, and the findings cannot be used as proof.
to the theory of evolution.
It is true that there are many species but there is no creature that is 99% human and a creature that is 98% human and a creature that is 50% human.
And the same goes for a cow, mint, and a lemon tree.
It is not clear to me where your assertion that there is one intelligent species (man) comes from. In my opinion, the ant is a very intelligent creature. I have never heard of an ant pulling out a knife or a gun and killing its sister. It is possible that due to objective reasons the ant is not able to exercise its intelligence just as it happens with cerebral palsy people, it is the bird that knows how to navigate thousands of kilometers and not the person. Animals know how to anticipate upcoming earthquakes and humans cannot. Plants know how to communicate with each other and convey information other than through speech and humans do not. And the dogs are really cute and smart.
Now we will move on to the subject of biology (theory of life).
I have in my warehouse a huge stock of particles of all known types.
Please cite one biological law, universal, completely independent of the laws of physics. and showed its role in the evolution process step by step. All stock at your disposal.
Scientists were able to understand in depth and breadth many different structures of "physical matter" that were "transformed" into biological matter.
(which in the end are special arrangements of the elementary particles).
The scientists were able to decipher biological relationships between the various animal components. and the roles of systems and subsystems, up to cells, genes and more.
Scientists have not yet been able to decipher the algorithm that explains how a certain structure "manages" to perform its function.
The process of creating energy in a person is described in the life sciences, but the entire process behaves according to the rules of physics/chemistry/nuclear (it will be called physics).
If in the theory of life a biological law was established independently of the laws of physics, there was an urgent need to examine whether the law is encapsulated in the laws of physics or refutes the laws of physics.
Finally, I don't understand why you mention aliens. The whole universe is wonderful. There is an absolute truth that we strive to discover, a truth that clarifies the secrets of the universe. I don't know how to get to the truth of this. I believe that the level of accuracy, formulation and understanding should be very high and completely accurate and of course logical at least as much as today's mathematics.
Look! In a trillion prime numbers between the digits, the sequence 153 exists in a certain place. Is this proof that a prime number should have the above sequence, or is there another prime number that contains this sequence.
I remembered the term "certain time" bothered you.
Let's take the example of B. If a car leaves from Tel Aviv to the north at a speed of 60 km/h, then at 11 o'clock it will be 60 km away, at 12 o'clock 120 km away, etc.
If a body falls at 12.00.00 from a height of one meter on a certain spring day, then at 12.00.01 it will reach the ground. Look, make a separation of the knowledge and the objective behavior again.
In quantum theory there is a definition of a wave evolving in time that describes the probability of the electron's location. Time is not my invention.
ב
I meant what I said - the original "man" 🙂
When we talk about an "ancestor" we are talking about an ancient species, that is, an ancient gene pool and not necessarily a specific individual.
Uncle
The meaning of an ancient father is - father's father's father's father's father... and the same with regard to an ancient mother. The idea is that each person has a father and a mother, and in addition, each father/mother has a number of children.
The male has on average more offspring than the female. This was very true in the past, and it is still true today (although it is surprising). Therefore the ancestor tree will have fewer layers than the mother tree.
Another surprising point is that today's ancient father (and also ancient mother) could be someone else in the future!! Think that Adam (name not so original...) had two sons - Abel and Cain. Suppose Cain only has a single descendant today and all other people are descendants of Abel. So, when Cain's offspring dies, our ancestor will now be Abel.
Nissim, there is something that is not really clear to me, maybe you will be able to clarify. You wrote that all human beings have a common ancestor who lived in different periods, and that the ancestor is much younger. But doesn't that mean that this ancestor's mother is the youngest ancestor? That is, by definition, the common father and mother will be located one generation apart from each other (mother and son or father and his house).
1) There are viruses. They have minimal DNA and RNA. Much shorter than bacteria. There are protein fragments that under certain conditions are able to replicate. They are all "pre-cellular" products, but they are part of evolution.
2) Regarding the tree: the bacteria are not extinct! They exist and multiply. New species of bacteria are also created from time to time.
ב
So I agree with the first part.
I have doubts about your claim. The organism with the shortest DNA known today is a type of bacteria - even though it has about half a million bases. If your claim is correct - I would expect to find organisms with a genome shorter than that.
Another thing - more significant, is your description of the "tree of life". At any given moment, this tree has many leaves that represent all the living orgasms, which have not yet multiplied. Their parents reside in the branches closest to the leaves. All the rest of the tree has long since died and of course does not undergo mutations
Splits into species we see only in retrospect. You can take any two organisms, living or not, and go back down the tree to find the common ancestor.
It's a bit more complicated than that because there is sexual reproduction. In particular, humans have a common ancestor and also a common ancestor. These two people were obviously not a couple and lived in different periods (the ancient father is much younger…….)
Yes, it's me !
1) Obviously, I meant salt molecules.
2) Wherever there is a possibility for salt to crystallize, it will crystallize. Equally, wherever there is a possibility for the creation of organic molecules, the organic molecules will be created. This is not a process that happened once at random at the dawn of history. It's a process that happens all the time.
3) Even if the only possibility for life in the universe is based on nucleic acids. There is no apparent reason for life to exist exclusively on Earth.
4) "The Tree of Life" indicates that life does not remain at the primitive level but becomes more and more perfect over time.
This does not contradict the fact that every moment there is spontaneous creation. Everything that is created naturally goes through a process of evolution. Both what was created a long time ago and what is created every moment.
From this point of view it can be said that every moment a new "tree of life" grows. But the new merges with the old in parts of the root and stem because there is no significant difference between an organic molecule created a million years ago and an organic molecule created a minute ago. In the upper part of the tree (the branches, the species) it is no longer the same because there is a considerable difference between the developed species. At the top of the tree, a mutation can result in the creation of a new species. In the lower part of the tree, a mutation can cause a slightly different molecule to appear, but it will not be significant.
It goes without saying that the things I have brought here are only assumptions! But without assumptions how will the research progress?
In research, an assumption is made and then its correctness is checked.
If you or any of the readers have connections in the academic world, I think it's worth using them to investigate this topic!
This is me …..
ב
Your confidence surprises me a little. It is certainly possible that life evolved only once in the universe. Most people in the world do believe that this is exactly the case.
Regarding atoms of salt ….. Salt atoms do not exist anywhere 🙂 And regarding the possibility of creating crystals from molecules of salt, this is certainly not true. There may be stars that are gaseous or liquid that do not contain any crystalline solids.
Of course there are no biological atoms. Amino acids have been found in meteorites, but no signs of life have been found there.
Life in continuous health? It's an interesting idea that I hadn't thought about in depth. There is no reason for this not to be true, except, perhaps, for the problem that existing bacteria may immediately eat any new life form.
Don't forget that every form of life we know is based on nucleic acids. Even the strange life forms that exist in hydrothermal vents are still based on nucleic acids. Maybe this is the only way of life? Or the only one that fits our conditions?
Additionally, I know of no evidence for life to have formed at a different time than the beginning of life as we know it. The familiar "tree of life" indicates that there is a single root root.
Strange as it may be:
Because matter behaves in such a way. There is no possibility of a universe without life.
Just like there is no possibility of a universe without salt crystals.
In any environment where there are atoms of salt, salt crystals will form.
In any environment where there are atoms of biological molecules, biological molecules will be formed.
Why should we assume that life was created once and for all?
Let's make another assumption (and also test it scientifically and thus improve the theory):
Life was not created just once.
Life did not just originate in the distant past.
Life is continuous creation. They are formed all the time over and over just like salt crystals are formed all the time wherever it is possible!!
It is difficult to recognize this because life at the beginning is very different from the complex life later in the process.
But it can certainly be recognized that viruses and bacteria continue to exist side by side with more complex forms of life and hence it can be assumed that organic molecules that are not organized as living cells continue to exist side by side with the bacteria and viruses.
Regarding RNA, DNA: it is quite possible that some of their components will be replaced by other components. It depends on the environment.
In an environment where there is a lot of salt, salt crystals will form. In an environment where there are many other substances, crystals of other substances will form. It depends on the availability of the material. Apparently the basic materials of RNA, DNA are the most available for the biological process. But it certainly does not rule out other materials.
In the vents of underwater volcanoes, life has been found that functions differently from life on the surface of the globe. There is no doubt that development depends on the environment.
ב
Nicely written. But allow me to be the devil's advocate for a moment. All life forms we know are based on the same mechanism of nucleic acids (RNA/DNA). Was life created exactly once? Is it several times but in the same way? Were there multiple life forms that competed with each other? Are there even possible forms of life that are completely different from what we know?
Strange, is not it?
And for that I had to read a lot. Oh yes, and also understand…..
When a car is traveling from Haifa to Tel Aviv there is no need to know where every particle of the universe is at any given moment or even where every particle of the car is. (Furthermore: it is even completely clear that not all the particles of the car come from Haifa to Tel Aviv).
There is no need to know the location of every particle in the universe in order to identify biological processes.
It is not even necessary to know the location of every biological detail.
There is no need to know exactly in detail what happened to each biological species.
It is enough to recognize the process in general.
The process is simple:
1) The creators.
2) Survival.
3) Extinction.
The beginning of the process is the formation of very simple biological molecules. And it is bound by reality that these molecules will be created.
that's it ! This is the secret of the creation of life! A chemical process that is a guaranteed result of the behavior of chemical substances. Neither statistics nor probability.
It is no different in principle from the formation of a salt crystal.
If we examine a salt crystal statistically, it seems that it is statistically impossible for billions of molecules to line up exactly in the form of a crystal. But the statistical argument does not hold here. There is certainty here that they do get along in crystal form.
Using arguments from statistics to try to prove that evolution is impossible is wrong!
The statistical argument is wrong because it does not hold for things that clearly exist.
This is similar to someone who sees a giraffe in the zoo and claims that statistically such an animal is not possible.
Since the animal already exists, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the statistical arguments are wrong!
Mmmmm…. The truth is that I wrote a thesis on evolution.
It's really wise to be anonymous and poison strangers. Since when is knowledge a disadvantage? And if Nissim read encyclopedias, what's wrong with that, it's not enough that he answers the people who try to reinvent evolution what it really is, when you have nothing to answer then you dismiss it as nonsense. Nissim is right in every word.
Miracles, you have read too many encyclopedias and that is probably what confused your mind completely. Let your mind dance
Yossi Simon
Let's start from your base. What you describe is the world of Laplace who really thought the world was deterministic. Today we don't think so. There are several reasons for this and I will mention 4. The first is prosaic but it is wrong to ignore it. To know the state of the particles there needs to be "someone" who has this knowledge. This someone is part of the world so he will need to know the state of all his particles. I hope you see the problem :). The second is related to the theory of relativity. This news is true for a certain time. But time depends on a number of factors (such as gravity and speed) and it is difficult to give meaning to a "certain time" in a large universe. The third reason - radioactive decay is (as far as we know) random - we cannot predict when a nucleus will decay. The meaning - the operation of the world is not deterministic. And the fourth point - the knowledge you describe requires perfect accuracy. You need to know the position and momentum of each particle with perfect accuracy. Think of the "butterfly effect" - every little mistake in knowledge will lead to a wrong hallucination...
I don't understand how you came up with the term "gang". A gang defines an action between two gang members that will create a third gang member. In living beings there is no such action - the offspring can be different from their parents!!!
Evolution is actually based on a very negative subject - death. There are random changes - as a result some of the offspring do not reproduce.... This is the essence of evolution!!!
Human development is completely contingent!!! If we go back in time and run the clock again, most likely (in my opinion) the person will not develop at all. This is an interesting philosophical question - will intelligent life always develop when life begins on a certain planet? Those who believe in aliens really hope it's true. Those who think about it ask themselves - why out of 10 million species alive today is there only one intelligent species?? (The answer is not theological!!)
And according to your last claim - there are and are universal rules of biology!!!! The evolution I described in the previous responses is universal.
You completely ignore what I wrote on the subject and are too locked into your opinions. You didn't find a single sentence wrong in what I wrote, and if that's the case then there's no reason in the world you shouldn't agree with me completely.
If you want a conversation that will help both of us then listen to what I say and relate.
If you want to preach then this is not the place.
another one
The reason is simple, but important. Imagine a creature that is a hybrid of a modern chimpanzee and a modern human. It is an animal smaller than man but larger than a chimpanzee. She is hairier than a human, has a flattened forehead, a flat nose and with longer "hands". The important point is that it is just as close to a human as it is to a chimpanzee. It's an approximation - because we don't know how much this animal has evolved in both branches. An example of such an animal is Australopithecus afarensis - but this animal is from a later period (3 million years compared to the common ancestor that was 5-6 million years ago).
That's my intention
Hello Nissim and those who follow!
Let's analyze the meaning of the term evolution again and start from the basics.
The abstract space contains a "world".
The world is a list of places in space. Where each place is represented by three numbers (length, width, and height) in relation to a given axis system with the addition of some marking representing an elementary particle.
The list of places of the particles proton, electron, etc., at a certain time is the "state of the world" at that particular time. The other elements of the world such as force fields and energy are expressed in mathematical equations. (The subject of uncertainty in quantum theory is not a problem, they are contained in the equations)
The uniqueness of these equations is that if you provide them with an initial figure of the "state of the world" at a certain time called time zero, these equations calculate or describe the "state of the world" at any other time greater than time zero. For the purpose we will call those equations as a dynamic equation.
The dynamic equation has no knowledge and no intelligence.
Again the dynamic equation has no knowledge and no intelligence.
The dynamic equation is the only one that contains all the necessary information and does not depend on any other external factor.
From now on everything is math. Miracles - period.
further!
The group of places in the space contains many subgroups (2 to the power of the number of places).
A very small part of the subgroups has such a configuration, a configuration that gives the group the nickname of "living being". (It is true that the living creature has additional properties, but its components still behave according to the calculations of the dynamic equation - that is, according to the laws of physics). We will refer to the group for the purpose of the discussion as "Creature".
We will choose one of the creatures and for the sake of the discussion we will call it "monkey" (it doesn't have to be an actual monkey that we know, it can be an elephant/cat/worm/bacterium or a creature that "petrified" miracles. Choose what you want.
Let's go back to the dynamic equation.
You claim that a kind of "bunch" (a concept in group theory) of creatures was created so that:
1. Listen and continue. The transformation results of the equation based on the creature are such that the creature continues to exist as a creature and belongs to the group.
2. The results of the transformation are the same for those creatures that are in different locations in space.
3. The type of transformation is always "positive"
4. The direction of transformation leads to human development.
And it is embedded in an uninformed and unreasonable equation.
Miracles! You cannot use biological terms because there are no universal laws of biology (that we know of). The biological products are the results of a physical world characterized by mathematical equations.
(And all this is assuming that the world develops randomly or that determinism rules).
If you want to believe in the correctness of the evolution hypothesis, I very much respect your belief. For me, the existing findings are not proof and far from being proof, as I understand how proof is supposed to look. It is very difficult for me to be convinced.
Miracles -
Why is the origin of man not the ape species (man)?
I know a scientific theory that holds that the ancient ancestor of man is an ape that is very similar to a modern chimpanzee.
I don't understand why you categorically state that this is not true.
(It is possible that since then the theory has weakened).
Miracles: K.I.S.K.S.
Yossi Simon
Regarding the point of evolution from the monkey.
What you describe is not evolution at all. What you are doing is constructing a straw man argument. First of all man did not evolve from the monkey. You have to stop with this stupid sentence. really.
I will try to explain evolution to you in a simple way. Please - think about what I'm writing and stop using all kinds of arguments that no one is saying.
Let's say I'm thinking of a number between a thousand digits. I ask you to guess this number. How many guesses will it take? To make it easier for you - the answer is on the order of 1000^10. Impractical - right?
But - let me help you. I ask you to guess Sifra Sifra. Let's start with the units - some guesses? It will take 5 on average. And now - you have counted the dozens - 5 more guesses.
That is - you will guess the number on average after 5000 guesses, and in the worst case - after 10000 guesses.
This is the way of evolution. The number we guess indicates a genome that can reproduce under certain living conditions. We are starting a magnum that is already quite suitable for the environmental conditions, otherwise it would not exist. We know that when environmental conditions change suddenly then there is a mass extinction. This has happened several times in the past, and unfortunately it is still happening today.
Natural selection is not a "hidden force" - it is simply the ingenious mechanism that performs the test of guesses.
Yossi Simon
You must understand several things
1 - Even if there was no fossil nose for medicine, the theory of evolution would remain on a stable basis. What is wonderful is that a fossil brain found to this day only reinforces evolution.
2 - I want to explain something that is not understood at all. The vast majority of fossils we find are not descendants of creatures that exist today. I'm sure even people who accept evolution are surprised by this statement. The theory of evolution says that every 2 creatures alive today have a common ancestor. But - most of the creatures that lived in the past have no descendants living today.
It follows that the chances of finding a developmental sequence in fossils is simply negligible.
Yossi - I know it is not understandable at all, but what I write is true, and you can expand on the explanations why it is true. Think about the fact that there are about 10 million species on Earth and about 24^10 creatures!!!!!
comes and goes
If the conditions I mentioned are sufficient for evolution, and these conditions are indeed met - then there must be evolution. This is true by definition 🙂
But - everything you mentioned could also be true. The first condition for evolution is variation. The reasons for the variation are changes in the genome. The reasons for changes in the genome are many - including radiation from the sun, cosmic radiation and even nuclear radiation. Of course there are also chemical substances that cause changes in the genome, unfortunately. We call such substances "carcinogens" - and the result of their activity we call "cancer".
The second condition for evolution is selection (or "differential reproduction rate"). Darwin wrote about two types of selection. The first, which everyone admits exists, is domestication by man. The second is natural selection. You describe another type - a suitor who performs selection. There is no problem here for evolution.
I will restate my argument. 1 - There are 3 conditions for evolution (sufficient and necessary): variation, selection and heredity. 2 - All of these conditions exist on Earth today. Therefore - there is evolution. If I made a mistake - I would love to hear where.
Regarding a disproving experiment. I proceed from the assumption that we define that two creatures are of different species if they cannot interbreed. This is an assumption that actually makes the experiment difficult. Now - let's take two populations of a certain species, a species that reproduces by sexual reproduction at a high rate. We will breed the two populations separately over a long period. Now - we will try to pair individuals from the two populations. If in every such experiment the pairings succeed, then we have disproved evolution.
And to explain the ear - there are cases where such experiments are done. Surprisingly, species were created that cannot interbreed!!!! One example is anemone flowers.
By the way - it is very easy to think of evidence that would disprove the theory of evolution. It is enough to find a fossil of a kangaroo in the Ararat Mountains area……
Avi Cohen
The beginning of life is not a "big hole" in evolution. We don't know how life began, and you are right that it is outside of evolution.
But - we have several possible explanations for the beginning of life, and we may never know which explanation is correct, or perhaps another explanation that we never thought of. There is, for example, Cairns-Smith's theory which is based on clay crystals, there is Jacques Monod's theory of "random" initiation, there is Hoyle Wickramasingh's panspermia, there is Manfred Egan's theory, and there is more...
And in the second topic you described - cosmic evolution - there are certainly such theories. In particular, Lee Smolin came up with such a theory, and even wrote about it in a book called The Life of the Cosmos.
To Yossi Simon:
For section 2:
The minimum number of changes is: A H D!
for example:
The difference between the word R Tsoi and the word M Tsoi is only one letter.
To Yossi Simon:
For section 2:
The minimum number of changes is: A H D!
for example:
The difference between the word desirable and the word m tsoi is only one letter. The
For miracles and Sahar Shalom!
For miracles!
The millions of species you mentioned are spread across. I, according to my limited understanding, believe that they should retire to the height
1. A straight line must be drawn between whichever creature you choose (creature from which man evolved) and man.
2. Please state the minimum number of changes that this creature should go through until receiving the finished product, i.e. "person". I'm guessing the number is astronomical. It is possible that some of the intermediate products became extinct. But a certain percentage was supposed to live within us and spread on a linear straight line between the ancient production and man. Moreover, I would expect that the density of the variety of life would be spread over a triangle/spherical space/ and a space with extra dimensions.
The laws of nature known today refer to a number of building blocks ie protons/neutrons/electrons/photons and a limited number of forces and concepts such as energy.
Universal laws of nature that refer to living beings/plants are not known. Any change in the movement of a foundation stone is the result of the balance of forces exerted on it at any given time. Likewise, the foundation stones/and the foundational forces do not have the intelligence and knowledge that in different arrangements they create a wonderful and fascinating world.
Forget for a moment all the concepts of biology. shield/cell/heredity... and we refer to combinatorics - the number of permutations of the arrangement of the foundation stones so that a living production is obtained.
Suppose man is descended from the monkey. We will extract the base of the monkey (that is, the building blocks that are a necessary condition for the reality of the monkey) we will count the number of particles of each building block and treat the complexity of the monkey as one permutation. We also consider the number of possible combinations (the order of the foundation stones) which is very huge.
Now at a certain time randomly for an undeciphered reason a change is made and one random new permutation is obtained, from the vast space of existing permutations. And the amazing thing is that the same type of change takes place simultaneously in all the monkeys (for demonstration purposes).
According to the theory of evolution, some hidden force known as "natural selection" causes the random changes to lead in one direction of "positive development". Mathematically, such a combination that will occur is absolutely zero.
Now miracles, if you deny any reality of anything unimaginable by man, then it is difficult for me to accept the theory of evolution. If you accept/believe in such power then the story is different.
In the context of the various descriptions of a variety of animals that you mention, their existence does not indicate that they were created in a process of sweeping evolution (for that matter).
to the moon!
Look, in mathematics, one counterexample is enough to disprove a mathematical argument. What I am trying to show is that according to the model of the structure of the universe correct for today, it is theoretically possible to create life in different forms, if you analyze the meaning of the "laws of inversion" (local repetition in time) you will argue that the laws of science make it possible to build a city on a hill in a few seconds.
If you were me, and presented the way of creation as I have presented, as exclusively possible, I would have responded like this: "Wait a minute! What do you think about the theory of evolution?”
You use the terms proof/evidence/based possibility it is necessary to understand and agree to the meaning of these concepts as it exists in the field of mathematics.
One Bedai was accused of murdering a young girl on the basis of a confession obtained through Dubbed. In his confession he "claimed" that the body was buried here. Later it turned out that the body was thrown into a well far away from here. Is there proof that the same Bedai did indeed kill the girl?
Laughter from work…..
It is very likely that Galileo did not say this in a second trial after he retracted the statement that endangered his life.
Copernicus was wrong - his model does not fit the model accepted today for the movement of bodies in the solar system.
You don't need to be a historian of science to know these things.
You need to understand what exactly a "fact" is - a fact is a description of reality that is indisputable - where is it indisputable? in the relevant discussion.
That is, in a court of fact it is a description of the reality that both parties agree on.
In a political debate - the fact that all parties in the debate do not believe that it is a lie -
And in this science, the evidence that no one doubted their truth (meaning that no one claimed that there was a measurement error or that the examiner lied)
These are the "facts" - according to the scientific concept, there is no access to eternal and correct absolute facts - it does not exist.
This approach has existed since Rana Duckert's Cogito Argo Sum.
--------------
Regarding evolution - yes, evolution is the theory that explains the evolution of fossils and the species alive today.
Just like there is a model that explains how gravitation works that explains the many evidences that things fall and how celestial bodies move the way they do.
Miracles:
1. The fact that three conditions are sufficient for evolution and indeed evolution takes place in our world is not "proof" that these three conditions led to evolution. For example, it is possible that the three conditions you mentioned do lead to small changes in the variety of animals, but the more significant changes are caused by:
A. A burst of solar radiation - there is already a minority among scientists who believe that significant evolutionary changes are caused by bursts of solar radiation and not (only?) as a result of "natural selection"
B. The "insemination" process is continuous - if life began on Earth as a result of a comet impact, the main cause of the "Cambrian explosion" may be another impact of another life-bearing comet.
third. A bored alien who visits on average once every hundred thousand years and plays with the local DNA. According to reports in hand his last visit was thirty years ago which explains Ahmadinejad and the rise of Christian fundamentalists in the United States.
Therefore, Darwinian evolution is a theory and not a fact. It has an advantage over my "theories" in that it is simpler than them. At the same time, until we predict processes that will confirm that such a wide variety of life can be created even without solar radiation, comets, or bored aliens, we cannot claim that evolution is "proven".
2. This time without cynicism - can you describe to me an experiment whose results would disprove evolution? In other words, what do we need to discover in order for you to say, gentlemen, that evolution was wrong?
Bouncer,
It seems to me that the discussions that develop as a result of the article have a life of their own, and they sometimes develop in directions unrelated to the article, but this fact does not make them any less interesting...
And if we are talking about different directions... I have a question for the creationists:
From a few conversations with people who do not believe in evolution, it became clear to me that the most difficult point to accept in the theory of evolution is the descent of man from the ape (although the theory claims that he is descended from a common ancestor of the ape and man).
They find it ridiculous that man could evolve from an ape-like animal. The question is, don't they find it ridiculous that a snake used to have legs and could talk to man?
I have a question for the evolutionists:
Does the theory of evolution explain how life developed from inanimate matter? It seems to me that evolution only explains a process that occurred once life had already developed... In my opinion, this is the biggest hole in the theory.
And from another angle, if the theory of evolution is true about the biological world, has anyone tried to include it about the physical world as well? Why is it not possible to assume that the physical world with all the physical constants that are exactly suitable for its existence, is simply one universe that did manage to materialize, and perhaps there were processes and structures at the beginning of the universe that were not stable, and therefore did not survive? Or maybe other universes that started and failed, unrelated to this universe? And so a situation was created in which intelligent beings developed in this universe, and could ask the question: How is the universe built in such a perfect way, that suits our development? But actually, they are the result of such a perfect universe, and not the reason why it was built this way...
Someone once wrote that "the end of the response is in reading comprehension",
It seems that at least some of the respondents do not understand what is written,
Another part brings up arguments that are not related to the topic,
Another part rely on vanity,
Only a few of the respondents respond to the matter,
And so, as "the poet" wrote, we have a "deaf discourse",
דניאל
I remembered an interesting example. The ant hedgehog in Australia, a mammal that lays eggs - the male has 63 chromosomes, the female has 64.
My reaction was hasty.
דניאל
The problem you mention is known and does not "endanger" evolution.
1 - We know about a certain chromosome in humans (number 2) contains in its center, more or less, a connection of two telomeres. Usually a telomere is the segment of DNA found at the ends of a chromosome. If you "disconnect" chromosome 2 at this point, you get 2 chromosomes that exist in chimpanzees. This is very strong evidence.
2 - There is a very common phenomenon (called "Robertson's translocation") that largely changes the number of chromosomes. It happens in one in a thousand babies. This phenomenon does not affect the phenotype - that is, that person (or another living being) lives and behaves normally. But - half of his offspring will not be able to be born at all. Except in the case that both spouses have the same translocation. The ancient father had 24 pairs of chromosomes, so the number of types of translocation is not large (and does not necessarily happen to every chromosome).
3 - The wild horse ("Pazwalski's horse") has 33 pairs of chromosomes. The domesticated horse has 32 pairs - this change took place a relatively long time ago. And here's something else - you can mate between the types of horses and the offspring will have 65 chromosomes!!!
Daniel - there is no problem with evolution. There are challenges, but for now they are all solvable. And moreover - they actually strengthen the theory.
A horse and a donkey can reproduce, but their offspring is barren, so a new species of "athon" is not created either.
post Scriptum. - After reading my previous comment I saw that it came out too critical of evolution and for the sake of fairness it is appropriate to also attach the counter argument to what I wrote. Here is a link to an evolutionary explanation of how man and monkey came from the same ancestor despite the difference in chromosomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
Yossi Simon
An evolutionary process is no longer a possibility for the development of all living beings in addition to the creation you presented, rather creation is the additional, and unfounded, possibility for the development of the variety of living beings, while evolution is the most established, proven and possible possibility.
Creation is not necessary when evolution is what caused the variety of species in the world, because evolution has evidence, foundations, proofs and logic compared to creation.
1. No, because animals are extinct.
2. 100 years is a really short time for a significant change in monkeys, which as you know, humans did not evolve from them, they evolved from a creature that was an ancestor of monkeys and humans, and by the way, changes in monkeys happen, simply or they are so small that it is impossible to distinguish them because they Not significant, or the change did not benefit the monkey in the process of survival, which caused in the natural selection process the changed gene to disappear, or no change was caused (this is also a possibility).
3. No, absolutely not, man evolved from a creature that did not have the following characteristics you presented, and man could not acquire them because these are too great changes that were not in the previous creature or were dropped from it over the years in an evolutionary process.
A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62 and they can interbreed, I didn't understand Daniel
Meir C
What you say is very true. Let's assume that the entire creation story is true - from that moment evolution "takes" and spoils the perfect world that our God made in six days. This is what happens when you overlap...
I am an enthusiastic supporter of evolution but we must not forget that it is not a fact but a theory and even one that is very partial. There are phenomena that are not well explained by evolution and I hope that one day we will have a more comprehensive theory.
For the sake of an example, I will bring a very strong argument in favor of intelligent design, although as I mentioned earlier, I do support evolution.
Here is the argument. A human has 46 chromosomes. An orangutan, gorilla and chimpanzee have 48. And now the painful question. How many chromosomes did the same ancestor from which the modern man and the modern ape evolved? By definition, an evolutionary process of random changes and natural selection cannot change the number of chromosomes and therefore cannot produce new species. He can very well change any species (remove tails, add wings) but not create a new species because the first individual of that species will have no one to breed with and will die. Let's go back to the example of man and the monkey: if in the population, all of whom have 48 chromosomes, as a result of a mutation, an ancestor of a human was born if he had 46 chromosomes, he would not be able to pass on his genetic load and therefore this new species would die immediately. It can be argued that as a result of a genetic mutation, twins with 46 chromosomes were born from the same cell and reproduced with each other, but twins born from the same cell are both male or 2 females and therefore cannot reproduce with each other either.
So here is an example of one argument that currently the theory of evolution does not have a good answer. This does not mean that the Torah is incorrect, but that it is still incomplete. At the moment, she knows how to explain well how existing species undergo improvement, but does not know how to explain how species are created. Those who have really delved into evolution know that there are still some painful arguments that still do not have an answer, so it is important to take everything in proportion.
The entire article shows that the process of evolution exists today. Nothing contradicts the assumption that the world may have been created in one moment 100 years ago, including all the fossils in the earth, ancient cities that are supposed to show us that there is a history, and perhaps creation also includes a memory in the minds of the people who live so that we all think we remember events from before. Creation even though we were created that way.
The answer to creationism is that it is possible that the world was created as it is with ancient fossils, creatures and us, but from the moment it was created, the fact is that evolution is a factual process and therefore the starting point is not important at all.
Like a function that exists, it can be recorded from any point and if someone is on the curve, he cannot see whether it was recorded from time 0 or minus infinity.
Yossi Simon
Regarding your first paragraph. Marie Gell-Mann once established a rule that said that everything that is not forbidden is required by reality. For example - the combination of the elementary particles, including position and momentum (velocity has no physical meaning) that makes up Rosenthal's collection is not prohibited, a fact that collection exists. From the Gell-Mann principle it follows that in an infinite universe there will be an infinite collection of Rosenthals! Moreover, there must be an infinite number of planets identical to the Earth, and an infinite number of planets that are each quite a bit different from the Earth. And what is most amazing is that there are "Earths" that look like ours that did not develop in evolution.
In this sense evolution is (perhaps) not necessary.
But the evidence we see forces us to determine that evolution did happen and is happening in the system we live in. You explained in my previous comment why I think this is so - no one contradicted any sentence there...
Now I will address the points you raised.
1. You are very wrong here in your understanding of what evolution means. There are maybe millions of species in our world. In a planned world, I would expect far fewer species. As engineers, we would prefer as few creatures as possible, and that these creatures be as identical as possible. In the animal world there are many species that fill the same ecological niche. For example - in Australia there is a species of bird that is divided into 3 varieties that differ only in the color of the head. But - these varieties cannot interbreed even though they live in the same area. What could be less effective than that? Evolution can explain it. If an intelligent planner did this to them then he has something to learn....
I'll say it again - there are a huge number of species, as predicted by evolution.
2. No - the process is not necessarily continuous and continuous. Again - you lack understanding of evolution. There are cases where there is continuity. For example - the speed of cheetahs increases steadily because those who run faster have a higher breeding chance. But - a new species was not created here. Imagine a river crossing a population of cheetahs. Let's say on the one hand they get faster and faster. On the other side, however, there are no gazelles, these are monkeys living in the trees. Here the cats will develop climbing abilities and greater physical strength. If time goes on, the two populations will drift apart genetically, to the point where they can no longer interbreed. At this moment - we got 2 species instead of the one we had.
100 years is too little in the timeline of evolution - don't be a demagogue. We separated from the chimpanzee 6 million years ago and the rate of change between the two species is consistent with evolution's predictions. Humans are indeed one species, but there are genetic differences between populations, such as sensitivity to milk, to various drugs and even to diseases. Humans get mixed up all the time. Modern man has only existed for a few tens of thousands of years. If there were communities cut off for long periods - it is likely that we would become different species.
3. Why did man need to grow wings? You really need to learn what evolution is!!!! Wings have evolved several times in nature. The wings of birds, mammals and insects are very different in their structure and development.
And what is interesting is that even today we see the evolution of wings. There are birds with wings that do not know how to fly. The ostrich is too heavy to fly and its reliance on running caused the wings to atrophy (it's a bit more complicated than that - I'll explain if you want). In the kiwi in New Zealand, the wings have completely disappeared and they have no trace in the skeleton. This is a more advanced stage of degeneration. In the penguins, the wings became flippers - this is an adaptation. There is even a parrot with wings in New Zealand that has wings that don't work - but he doesn't know it and he tries to fly - and just falls from the tree to the floor 🙂
There are frogs with a membrane between their toes that helps them crawl. There are snakes that carpet their backs and are able to suckle, and there are possums in Australia that have membranes between their palms, and this is also used for suckling. These are all developing wings. Maybe one of them will actually fly one day?
Man evolved in the savannah of Africa. There it is better to stand on two and hunt in a group. Lions fight among themselves and then the power developed. A trait does not develop because it is worthwhile - it develops because it has a base to develop from and there is benefit in the slow development of that base in a certain direction.
We don't fully understand the electron, but we understand enough to put a man on the moon, prevent polio (remind me why God created it??) and understand how life develops.
Hello miracles!
Regarding the experiment I proposed, it is true that according to the principle of uncertainty the limited person does not know at the same time both the mass and the speed of the electron. But it really doesn't matter if we know or not. But there is mapping. I'm simply raising a possibility and if and "by chance" a group of particles would be positioned exactly as it appears in the blueprint for the creation of man, the result would be the creation of "Asaf Rosenthal" as an adult. The goal is to show that it is not necessary to assume that living things were created in the process of evolution.
Regarding the topic of evolution, I see it only as a hypothesis, one can say a legitimate hypothesis as well as interesting and fascinating.
This hypothesis offers solutions to a limited and limited number of questions.
If the universe was created by chance from a very small number of building blocks and force fields, then:
1. The diversity of the fauna was supposed to be much more dispersed and dense (that is, to contain a very wide space of health (living beings) between the one-celled monkey/creep and man.
2. The process should be continuous and continuous. Have they recognized in the last 100 years a particular evolutionary change in which monkey has been trained for human life? 100 years is a long time because we are dealing with many changes that take place gradually.
3. According to the principles of evolution, man was supposed to be able to fly like a bird, know how to navigate thousands of kilometers like a bird, hear like a dog, smell like a cat, be strong like a bear, be smart like an ant and so on and so forth.
And again a quote from Malplace "an intelligent being that knew the location and speed of all the particles in the universe at a certain moment, could calculate from them these locations and speeds at any other moment".
The thought that the particles will always be found in the "positive" place for the living creature can be called a type of faith.
It's like assuming that a car without a driver drives randomly around Weizmann Square for years without harming anyone
It's nice that you mention the law of uncertainty because indeed until this moment the absolute nature of the electron has not dawned on scientists. So how can it be said with certainty that the nature of the world, in all respects, is the same?
R.H. Rafai.M
I probably didn't explain myself well. I will try again.
1. Regarding the process of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life forms we see today - there is no debate about this in science. There are 3 necessary and sufficient conditions for evolution and these exist in our world. Therefore, there is evolution.
2. We know how to explain the mechanism of evolution. There is a lot of evidence for the actual existence of the process and not a single piece of evidence that contradicts the theory, or even weakens it a bit. Evolution has a predictive ability (which has already produced results) and there are also experiments that can disprove it. Therefore, evolution is a valid scientific theory (according to Popper 1963).
3. Evolution does not explain how life began, for the simple reason that the condition of a differential reproduction rate is not met - that is, there is no competition. We know several theories for the formation of life, so there is no need to invent a "creator" here.
4. Probability does not speak of the past. You can't say it's unlikely that something happened because the probability of it happening was low. Again - the sugar cup on the floor illustrates this.
Is there anything in these 4 points that you, or anyone, disagrees with? In particular, I would love to hear where my knowledge of probability lies…..
The scientific investigation is bearing fruit. if for the health of the individual. and bridges between people despite their national and religious affiliation.
Even in science there are beliefs. But they are not presented as truths. Rather, they stand to be confirmed or refuted.
I ask, how is it, even though people study science studies. For some reason. They do not use scientific thinking to manage their day-to-day lives.
Instead of making a confrontation between traditional, religious or social belief in segments of scientific knowledge.
It would be more beneficial for people to make use of scientific thinking. They will offer efficient suggestions, ideas and questions for checking content. To promote knowledge in managing our lives. Managing peace between people in our world and protecting the planet. that belongs to everyone!
Yossi Simon
I'm trying to understand what you wrote. Your description of human replication seems correct to me on a philosophical level, but not on a physical level: the mapping you define is not possible even for a single particle - you forget the uncertainty principle....
But - let's assume that the experiment is possible and it is indeed possible to create any living creature from a template. What prevents the possibility that the earth, if every creature lives on it, every stone and every grain of dust was not created two weeks ago by an alien playing with his Lego? I know it sounds silly, but it is more likely than the biblical story…..
Let's look at it from another angle. Theodosius Dobzhansky once said that biology cannot be explained without evolution. There are so many illogical things in living things that only evolution knows how to explain. For example - why do many animals have a blind spot in the eye, but not all of them? Why is rotting meat poisonous? Why a peacock with such a twisted tail? Why do we age? Why do our hair rise when we are afraid or lie to us? Why do we fall in love? Why do we fight?
This list can go on and on. The theory of evolution gives explanations for every question I described.
Add to that that there is no evidence that contradicts evolution.
Why not accept the theory of evolution?
Miracles
Look, there really is no connection between the things you say. I asked you "Regarding your question, I didn't understand. What do you mean?" And you answer me with an explanation of natural selection. This has nothing to do with my question. You talk about how these 'conditions' are facts, although and even though before that you wrote "Life began in a physical/chemical process unknown to us at the moment.... (Probably to you this is clear as a fait accompli - otherwise how would you write words of wisdom here). And once again, I say that you probably did not understand the object. At the beginning you said that there is no single opinion about evolution and casually stated what is a theory - in your opinion - as a fact.
Regarding your understanding of probability, you have no clue what probability is. You tried to get some point across here but failed. You probably meant that this life wasn't really created, but we live in a movie... let's say in some matrix as you probably think. Right?
Hello Dr. Assaf Rosenthal!
I believe that I disagree that there exist (including in the past) types of living beings that differ from each other in huge numbers (we would say even very huge). It is also undeniable that there are huge developmental differences between the lowest creature and the ant/lion/bird/monkey/dog/human/elephant/spider/dolphin. It is also not disputed that due to unclear factors sometimes a process of "mutation" occurs in a certain type of "living". And moreover, even the limited human (almost every creation has a certain characteristic that is not inherent in humans) was able to decipher biological structures and create mutations on his own.
And still, all this is not enough to establish that the idea of the evolution process did indeed take place in practice.
Let's do a thought exercise.
Step 1. Let's stop time for a brief second and perform an atomic mapping to Assaf Rosenthal. In this experiment we will plot the exact spatial location of all the elementary particles of which Asaf is composed (protons/notions/electrons including the speed and momentum).
Step 2. From a large stockpile of basic materials in our possession, we will produce Assaf Rosenthal as it is mapped.
Since our production machine is slow, the production process will take about 40 minutes.
Step 3. "Locking" Assaf Rosenthal We "locking" the whole animal, since at any given moment we are able to produce Assaf as he is. We do not need a process of evolution.
With the same method we are able to produce each and every creature according to the assembly blueprint, which means that we are not committed to the process of evolution.
Another thing you define "deaf bush". There is indeed a "deaf discourse" that stems from a lack of overall definition/agreement of basic concepts. You refer to a very complex subject like animal development, using terms like "fact".
Are you convinced that all of your readers relate to the concept of "fact" exactly as you do?
A factual experiment can be carried out in the group, which demonstrates how differently CA sees the concept of "fact".
For the very idea of evolution, in my humble opinion, today it is not possible to determine the "correctness" or "negation" of the process in an absolute way. The ear can be explained both here and here. As Plas expressed in connection with the determinism of the world there is no compatibility with the idea of natural selection (I do not indicate the holes in order not to prolong the response)
Another thing, the shape of the earth and the relationship between the movements of the stars is not relevant to the topic under discussion.
R.H. Rafai.M
The evolution of living things has exactly 3 conditions: variation, differential breeding rate and heredity. As long as these conditions are met there will inevitably be evolution. Variation exists - we see it every day and know where it comes from. The differential reproduction rate exists - Darwin called it natural selection. And heredity also exists and originates like the source of variation - genetics.
Therefore - these conditions are facts.
In connection with the issue of probability - over and over again they write here about the "likelihood" of the formation of life. And again and again I say - probability does not talk about the past. Pour a cup of sugar on the floor - what is the probability of getting exactly the scattering of crystals you see now?
that's it
B, when was the last time you saw a new component such as a lens or a nail or a feather from no feather or eyelashes from no eyelashes or a heart from no heart, etc.? This is what I call a new component, and not just mutations.
What about fossils? Since when are fossils evidence of evolution? A dog fossil is almost identical to that of a Tasmanian wolf, even though they both evolved at the same time.
Miracles, honey, no one talked about conditions for evolution to exist. You are confusing something.
The question is: are these conditions facts or theory.
Regarding your question, I did not understand. what do you mean
It is difficult to talk about the beginning of life. There does not seem to be a dividing line between chemical phenomena in the ancient sea that underwent processes of chemical evolution and the beginning of the biological life of a cell that replicates and undergoes biological evolution as we know it today.
It is clear that initially the chemical processes dominated the dome. There was a huge sea, which was full of chemical interactions and there was no shortage of energy sources either (heat, geysers, volcanic eruptions, geothermal phenomena, lightning, cosmic rays, meteor collisions, a very dynamic climate, etc., etc.).
I estimate that within 20 years (this has to do with computing power which is currently lacking, barely a fold of protein can be digested) we will already be able to show how life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup.
R.H. Rafai.M
I assume you are referring to the words.
"Evolution is not an explanation for the beginning of life." - It's exactly like that. One of the conditions for evolution is competition between individuals of the same species. At the beginning of life there was no competition... don't get me wrong - life started with a physical/chemical process unknown to us at the moment.... Not some mumbo-jumbo 🙂
Regarding your second comment ….. did you think of it yourself?
Miracles, thank you
I read their opinion and there is indeed the reference that faith is an evolutionary product, but it seems to me that the subject is not the most interesting to scientists even though it is an influential and central factor in the life of humanity.
"Evolution is not an explanation for the beginning of life." - The evolution of the first cell - is it not evolution in your opinion? Or is it not a theory?
What a funny thing you are.
"A computer, or any other tool, cannot calculate the probability of a past event. Probability always talks about the future. If there are several explanations - then you can definitely find the most likely explanation among them, that's all." - Did you know that when you emit carbon dioxide from the digestive system and combine the oxygen in the environment with an explosive substance such as gas vapors trapped in a container, it is possible, by connecting the molecules, to produce a flame that will come out of the place where the sun does not shine unless you tan like the aborigines of the Australian outback. that's it.
Mathematical Biology:
You say "we should set things straight" and immediately move away from accuracy and start twisting:
1)"The only observed fact is of course the variety of species of dogs/cats/bacteria.
Indeed:
What about fossils?
What about bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics?
What about other facts you are ignoring?
2) The theory is by no means an "extrapolation". The theory is a comprehensive structure that explains all the observed phenomena. If there is even one phenomenon that contradicts the theory, then we will not accept the theory and will try to develop another theory that will explain each and every phenomenon.
3) "In other words, given thousands of small changes within the species, can we get a completely new creature with completely different systems."
Where did you get it from? Which biologist makes this claim?
a) It doesn't have to be thousands of small changes. It can be a number of small changes or even a single change.
b) In order for different species to be created, there must be a condition of impossibility of breeding between different parts of the same species. Only in this way do different parts of the same species develop into different species. This is a very important part of the process. As long as there is a possibility of reproduction within the species, the gene pool of the species belongs to the entire species, therefore the species remains one species and does not split into different species.
c) The new creature is not a completely new creature, it is very similar in many features to the creature that preceded it. With the exception of several changes following which it is defined as a separate species.
4)"Furthermore, let's assume for the purpose that a new component appears once in a trillion mutations. And two components required for a new system is already required for a trillion squared mutations. The time available to evolution is simply not enough.”
a) Why should we make such a wrong assumption?
A new component appears in every replication! In every descendant!
b) Two new components can appear at the same time, so there is no need for a trillion squared as you claim.
c) Components that have already appeared dictate the components that will appear later, therefore the calculation of "independent variables" that you are trying to cling to is wrong!
From a statistical point of view, the whole process is not only possible but even required by reality.
Yaniv
Evolution is not an explanation for the beginning of life. There are several options for the beginning of life and it is very possible that we will never know which one is the right one, or maybe even it will be an option that we will never think about.
A computer, or any other tool, cannot calculate the probability of a past event. Probability always talks about the future. If there are several explanations - then you can definitely find the most likely explanation among them, that's all.
Ori
There are a number of people who have studied the subject of the origins of religious belief. Two highly recommended ones are Daniel Dent and Pascal Boyer.
Yaniv
This is why the computer was invented in the first place! to calculate complex data.
As soon as the complex thing - has been simplified, then the thing becomes clearer to a person.
Today, there is still no computer powerful enough to simulate the creation of the universe to this day and display it on a screen (this is entrusted to Kontum computers) - but they already know how to perform weather simulations and such.
In any case, your statement "...and it would at least allow us to know what the chances are that something like this will happen?" – Well, this thing did happen.
The whole topic in the article is about whether this thing that happened is a fact or a theory. And if you ask me, if you call this life a 'theory' - then your opinion is the opinion of many believers.
Question: Is it possible to carry out a certain type of simulation with the help of supercomputers and prove once and for all the possibility of the existence of evolution under the conditions that existed on Earth at the time the process began? That is, to take the data we know and load it into a computer program that will know how to run a virtual world and at least allow us to know what the chances are that something like this will happen?
Asaf
In my opinion, the one who tries to convince the believer in God, that there is no higher power, is no less innocent than that believer.
That blind faith is a very interesting phenomenon and it's a shame that scientists don't bother to understand the reasons for its existence.
Perhaps this is a trait that developed during evolution and has something to do with the ability to survive in tribes or herds,
In any case, it is deeply rooted in most people as an instinct regardless of truth or correctness.
Things are not that simple.
What we see is not a fact in nature. It is a fact in the experience of seeing. The same goes for everything.
It should be understood that we do not know what is in nature itself. And it doesn't matter which telescope or macroscope we use. It is always accompanied and supported by theory. It is on a scientific philosophical level.
At the simple level, it is clear that all those who do not accept the theory of evolution do so for irrational reasons. And not for reasons of scientific skepticism. And so this whole post is unnecessary. Those who did not believe will continue to not believe and vice versa.
Ami Bachar
You yourself say that evolution is true. Anyone who disagrees with her does not present real scientific arguments, not even the Christian creationists. Do you think otherwise?
Skewers of hope
There is no scientific debate about the mechanism driving evolution. There are philosophical debates about a number of topics but this is outside the realms of science. And we don't know how it all started, although there are a number of known possibilities, so we don't need to invent a "superior force".
Evolution is about as certain as Newton's theory of gravitation.
We should set a few things straight. The only observed fact is of course the variety of species of dogs/cats/bacteria. This is an observable fact that can be seen with the eyes. The theory (ie belief/hypothesis) begins when we extrapolate to this observed process. That is, given thousands of small changes within the species, can we get a completely new creature with completely different systems. And the answer to that from what we know is no. A good estimate is that we have already witnessed several trillion parallel experiments in nature. And we always got the same result - the dogs remained a type of dogs, and cats remained a type of cats, without any beginning of the development of a new system (it should be noted that even in the example of the lizard, the supporters of evolution themselves do not believe that organs are created by blow, so that it is a modification of an existing organ or the activation of Dormant genes, as in the case of the irgm gene). More than that, let's assume for that matter that a new element appears once in a trillion mutations. And two components required for a new system is already required for a trillion squared mutations. The time available to evolution is simply not enough.
It can be summarized as follows:
a) In the scientific community in light of the findings [observations, measurements, etc.] - there is no debate about the fact that there was/is evolution (the symptom).
b) The debate and question mark in the scientific community revolves around - what is the mechanism that drives/causes the development of evolution (the cause).
As an analogy:
a) We know that every winter people get sick [observations and measurements]. (the symptom)
b) For many years there was a debate and a question mark as to the mechanism that causes the disease. (the reason)
Today we know that the mechanism is viruses - (the reason)
The public who is not familiar with the subject of evolution who hears that there is a lack of clarity/certainty regarding B (the cause) thinks that it is also about A (the symptom).
Greetings,
I must point out that today we look at Karl Popper as the one who coined the principle of refutation which is the accepted scientific principle. The principle means that a principle is scientific if it is possible to think of ways to disprove it and put it to the test. A fact is not a scientific argument. Theory yes. To say about something that it is like this and that is it, is not scientific. Evolution is a theory (good and true) but it is not an indisputable fact.
Best regards,
Dr. Ami Bachar
We have created dozens if not hundreds of different types of dogs that apart from the barking effect have almost no similarity between them, dwarf dogs such as pinschers, Collie dogs (Lassie), Great Danes, Bulldogs, Poodles, Dachshunds.... And all this through a process of evolution only (selection, culture, selection, culture...)
We created the domesticated banana that has no similarity (in taste and shape) between it and the wild banana, also through a process of evolution only (domestication).
Say that you don't understand exactly how the process works (say at the molecular level) but how can you deny it?