His fortuitous appointment to the position of IBM Israel spokesperson, during which Standard Public Relations Town became one of the most important journals, bringing science, art, culture and everything in between, was perhaps one of the most important fortuitous things that happened to science communication in Israel.
It is difficult for me to define exactly the role of "thoughts" - the life's work of Zvi Yanai, who passed away a few hours ago, in formulating my decision to engage in what is now known as science communication, but I still remember that afternoon and evening that were formed together live on Channel 8, when the science channel was still on TV. , and which were transmitted live in front of a full hall (including me) in an auditorium in Haifa, they called it Oral Thoughts.
I remember a simple setting, Zvi Yanai sitting in the middle and beside him professors from different fields, I only remember that one of them was Miri Eliav-Feldon who spoke about the evolution of man. It turns out in retrospect that this was almost the culmination of Yanai's 20-year work, of which actual fragments reached me through random booklets of thoughts that strengthened my love for popular science. I remember that following that evening I went to the Technion library and spent hours reading past issues of thoughts.
Later in the nineties, when I was already writing for "Haaretz" and he was the director general of the Ministry of Science (he worked both under Shulamit Aloni who brought him in and under Benny Begin) I interviewed him. Unfortunately, I am unable to reproduce a copy of the interview at the moment. What's more, I remember that I asked the ministry for a copy of the Knesset's remarks, in which his answer as the ministry's representative to the query of then MK Avi Yehezkel (Labor) what the Ministry of Science and the government are doing in general about the issue of UFOs that reports of encounters with were common at the time. He opposed dealing with the issue from practical-economic considerations and said that "one of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that time does not increase the understanding of the phenomenon, and indeed after 50 years of so-called encounters with UFOs and aliens we do not know more about them today than we did 50 years ago. This is the case with the dinosaur that supposedly resides in Loch Ness, with astrology, with parapsychology, with palm reading, and so on with these different and strange beliefs."
In an interview with Miron Rapoport in the Haaretz newspaper in 2005, he said that Mesutt turned from a casual expression of IBM Israel into what it was completely by accident. Until then, Linnaeus had no connection to the world of science and philosophy. After years of odd jobs, he saw an ad for a "press officer" position in an advertising agency (what is today called a public relations person). He moved from office to office until in 1970 he received an offer from IBM to manage the public relations department.
"IBM then published a kind of newsletter about what was going on in the company, which was distributed among managers in the economy. His name was "thoughts". "It was a marketing bulletin," says Yanai. "The news looked like this: 'In the dairy industry in Tnuva, they put in an IBM system, and today the produce is sky high.' That was the style, more or less. It bored me." He started incorporating articles of a different kind into the bulletin. A conversation about science and morality with Isaiah Leibovich and Aharon Maged, for example. At first, the company turned their noses up a bit, they didn't understand the connection between their company's bulletin and these articles. But the reactions of the clientele were enthusiastic and the managers gave him a free hand, "and for that they deserve all the respect".
"From one article on matters of science it expanded to two articles and then the entire booklet dealt with matters of science and culture and the relationship between them. From here to there, "Thoughts" was a hit, printed in 15 thousand copies even though it was not sold in stores and glittered on the letter of everyone who considered himself; Yanai himself became a sought-after lecturer, consultant and media person, and in the countless articles he wrote he became the guru of popular science in Israel." Rapoport writes.
In the same interview, he also told how he became a Catholic teenager who was one of Mussolini's fans (without knowing that the Nazis took his grandmother to a concentration camp at the time), and how he arrived together with his sister at a kibbutz where he became an enthusiastic Zionist and a great believer in equality, and yes, also an atheist. "If I could, I would put God on trial at the tribunal in The Hague for war crimes."
There is much more to be said about the many books he wrote that became bestsellers, about his love for the field of biology and how he explained to the general public what telomeres are and their importance in extending human life.
Later we will bring more articles about Zvi Yanai's legacy, his philosophy and the ideas he promoted in the field of biology. Those interested in adding information are welcome to contact me personally at editor@hayadan.org.il
For an interview with me about Zvi Yanai's legacy on Channel 7
154 תגובות
I want to know how God was created, was it all at once? Or gradually?
Is he a freak or did someone plan him?
Shmulik
And indeed Hingoe won. And that's even without him proving anything.
It's good that you finally figured it out, hopefully you won't be like Nisim again, and start a new argument where you won't be able to prove anything to him either.
Ghost,
Indeed plastered
Shmulik
"How's the wall"?! You'll have to ask the wall for that.
Be sure he won.
The fact is that he continues to argue with him.
This of course does not mean that he (Hingou) is right. But this shows that Nissim fails to prove anything to him (you can also judge by his reactions), and that is why Khingue continues to argue with him. What is not understood here?
Of course I meant 13.8 billion years
A ghost, who won and who won. How is the wall by the way?
All of xianghua's arguments are in the form of questions because he is unable to prove any of his claims. He claims that Shotton cannot develop naturally, which he will prove. He not only has to refute Miller's words, but he also has to prove that the baton could not have developed through a wider structure, which was reduced to the baton, just like in the example of the arch (which can be formed through erosion). Proof through an illusory question, which has no relation to reality, is not proof. What is not understood here?
The only thing I don't understand about the miracles argument is infinity. Miracles, do you mean multiworlds? Otherwise there is no infinity not in time (according to the claims the universe was created about 17 billion years ago) and there is no proof that there is infinity in the amount of matter. I'm not claiming that multiple worlds are necessary to accept the fact of evolution, but I'm just curious as to what you meant
It's a bit of a shame that you are talking nonsense, in an article about the death of an important person, on the other hand, these are the topics he liked.
And so I will try to focus my talkbook on topics he liked, popular science but in the context of the next world.
Although it may sound unscientific to some of you, I mean that I could meet Zvi in the next world, in any way, if it is to return his body back in time and fix it (who knows), if it is to duplicate his knowledge in his head to a person who was younger, and if it is to try to talk to him For this without realizing what happened to him, because he did not believe in intentional intelligences and time reversals. He wants to give respect to a person even though he remembers and knows that in a certain world of repetitions this does not have to be the end. Respectfully blowing water
something
So you would have said from the beginning that you don't read comments, and all you wanted to do was rattle off a stupid comment here to get attention. So there you go, farting a comment like there's no toilet, and now you're welcome to go back and sit quietly if you don't have anything relevant to say.
Hingo
OK. Nissim can't prove anything to you, but that doesn't mean you're right. OK. We understood. you won Are you ready to leave us alone? Continuing the argument between you will lead nowhere. He won't learn, you won't learn, and anyone who reads your comments won't learn anything that is factually correct.
Miracles. you said:
"I have yet to hear a scientist claim that a tiger and a lion are the same species"-
According to the definition of a species (ability to produce offspring) they are able to produce offspring (tygon and liger) and therefore belong to the same species. What exactly are you talking about?
"As for the Shoton, you have the obligation to prove that there is no way in the universe for its development through a natural process,"-
Can you prove that there is no way in the universe for evolution to occur naturally? Don't you know that engines and clocks are the product of planning?
"Show me one scientist who claims that the number of stars in the universe as a whole is 10 to the 23rd power, which means that we see the entire universe, that is, we are at the center of it" -
Here is from the official website of the European Space Agency:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Herschel/How_many_stars_are_there_in_the_Universe
With this simple calculation you get something like 1022 to 1024 stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places
Do you disagree with them? I'm guessing not.
Well, I think I'm exhausted. If you don't resume in the next response, I don't have much to add.
someone
What does not exist is an empty freak...
xianghua
I have not yet heard a scientist who claims that a tiger and a lion are the same species.. On the other hand, according to the Torah, the daughters of men multiplied with the sons of God.... you will know 🙂
Regarding the Shoton, you have the duty of proving that there is no way in the universe for its development through a natural process, of some sort and not necessarily evolution....You will also have to explain to me why there are 3 different types of Shoton, that is, why it was designed several times.
Show me one scientist who claims that the number of stars in the universe as a whole is 10 to the 23rd power, which means that we see the entire universe, that is, we are in the center of it....
Your "proof" of its inextricable complexity is simply embarrassing....ask my father to delete it....
And again I want to know, is God a freak or not? Is it possible to show a gradual transition from nothing to an almighty God who creates things in hocus pocus?
Miracles:
you said:
"Do you think lion and tiger are separate species? Is it a horse and a donkey?"
If they are able to produce offspring even in the first generation. So no, they are not separate species. But it depends on the definition of "sex".
Regarding the bacterial rod. A bad mistake. Not only has the Shoton argument never been disproved. It has even gotten stronger since it was first uploaded. The supporters of evolution claim that because the shuton and the ttss share a number of similar proteins. This is the evidence that they evolved from each other. It is easy to disprove this claim - both the mp player and the watch have common components: batteries, screws, monitor, etc. But we all know that there is no gradual transition between them. And hence the whip is indeed unbreakable.
"I didn't understand what you were saying about the infinity of the universe. I explained to you why it does not make sense to think that it is the number of stars in the universe." -
So what to do if the scientists involved in the field think differently. Again, do you have a scientific source to the contrary?
Say it
What did I say that was not true?
Listen, it's hard for me to follow this long discussion, I won't go back and read every post again.
Are you against evolution? I estimate that the answer is - yes, then how is it that you still claim that the human body was broken and could have been created in stages?
After all, this is usually what the supporters of evolution claim, and the people of intelligent design (people like you) oppose.
Hingo
""About the infinity of the universe. The number 10 to the power of 23 describes the number of stars in the observable universe. There's no reason to think it's all the stars"-
This is what the scientists in the field claim. Do you have another figure? I'm guessing not.”
You are obviously right in this case. But stop laughing at them, because it turns the discussion into a neighborhood joke. Instead of a discussion that others can learn from.
something (or by your other nickname: "joins the discussion")
Stop being like miracles and talk about it.
It is not clear where you are rowing.
Just answer whether or not you understood what I explained to you ("Everything created by evolution can be broken down. And this includes the rainbow from the stones.") about evolution?
xianghua
Are tiger and lion separate species? What about a horse and a donkey?
discovery is not an official body and therefore cannot respond officially. Besides - they agree with me that a rainbow is not a discharge...
You have no proof that the bacterial shotton (you should learn Hebrew) cannot be broken down. Bihi did not find a way... he is not exactly considered a genius biologist (I hope a judge without any education in the field saw the holes in his arguments).
The infinity of the universe... What does your last 3 sentences have to do with the topic? What is the connection between the words of each sentence? Why would I have a different figure than what the experts on the subject say? After all, I explained to you why it is unlikely that there are only 10 out of 23 stars in the universe. The explanation is very simple…
Arch - no stone can be dismantled without the arch collapsing and therefore, by definition, an arch is not an unloading
parable.
xianghua
Do you think lion and tiger are separate species? Is a horse and a donkey?
discovery writes An arch is irreducibly complex: if one removes a piece, the remaining pieces will fall down In other words - they agree with me.
Regarding the bacterial whip (you should also learn some Hebrew) - the issue was disproved a long time ago, and it doesn't matter that a charlatan named Michael Behey (whose testimony was thrown out by a judge) thinks otherwise.
And with the Shoton he is truly unbreakable - you have to prove that it is impossible that the intelligent planner is nothing but an alien who developed by himself in evolution.
I didn't understand what you were saying about the infinity of the universe. I explained to you why it doesn't make sense to think that it is the number of stars in the universe. what did not you understand??
"So the human body (which exists in nature) is a freak?" And could it be created in stages?" – What, you don't know that?”
Anonymous, I'm really having a hard time following you, you agree that the human body could have been created in stages, and that's exactly what the theory of evolution claims.
So bottom line do you agree or oppose the theory of evolution?
Miracles:
"Elephants are a separate species. Even if every hundred years they raise an offspring. "-
If they produce offspring, how do you call them separate species? What exactly is separate here?
"One issue is inextricable complexity. This has long been disproved. The rainbow of stones in nature completely refutes this." -
Below is the official response of the Discovery Institute to the rainbow argument:
http://www.discovery.org/a/3718
Their response is that the bow itself can be disassembled into certain parts. But this does not prove that it is inextricable. As in a car, you can remove the air conditioner and it will still function. Does this mean the car could have evolved gradually or even its air conditioner? Definately not.
"The second issue is comparing two explanations. Where are your two explanations for the same event?"
My explanation is that a motor (flagellum) requires planning. Just as a man-made engine requires planning.
"About the infinity of the universe. The number 10 to the power of 23 describes the number of stars in the observable universe. There's no reason to think it's all the stars"-
This is what the scientists in the field claim. Do you have another figure? I'm guessing not.
"So the human body (which exists in nature) is a freak?" And could it be created in stages?" – What, you don't know that?
Miracles
So I ask you: In your opinion, the rainbow is an inextricable complex? Detailed reasoning and explanation. (Try not to avoid the question. Imagine that you are taking a test for your PhD and everything depends on the grade)
"I say that inextricable complexity has not yet been found in nature."
Does that mean the human body (which exists in nature) is a freak? And could it be created in stages?
Keshet has inextricable complexity, according to the definition of the inventor of the Sheg.
The rainbow was not created by an intelligent designer.
What is not understood?
Miracles
When all you have to say is "there's no point talking to an idiot liar" - you probably have something to hide. And it's probably because you're pretending to be someone you're not.
You also wrote: "One issue is inextricable complexity. This has long been disproved. The rainbow of stones in nature completely refutes this."
Is that so?
After all, before that you wrote: "I unloaded this bow". And you also repeat it in many of your comments. You claim that "a rainbow of stones in nature is an inextricable complexity".
Why did you suddenly change your mind? What happened?
Joins the discussion
If your comment is directed to me,
so no. I'm not saying that "there is no such thing as "inextricable complexity"?".
I say that inextricable complexity has not yet been found in nature.
Everything created by evolution can be decomposed.
And that includes the stone arch as well.
xianghua
Elephants are a separate species. Even if every hundred years they raise an offspring. How does this affect the issue?
And regarding the probability - you are mixing two issues.
One theme is inextricable complexity. This has long been disproved. The rainbow of stones in nature completely disproves this.
The second issue is comparing two explanations. Where are your two explanations for the same event?
Regarding the infinity of the universe. The number 10 to the power of 23 describes the number of stars in the observable universe. There's no reason to think it's all stars. On the contrary - if there are only 10 to the power of 23 stars, then we are in the center of the universe, in complete contradiction to the principles of cosmology.
flat - trusting
Miracles. you said:
” Think of an African elephant and an Asian elephant. These are two different species, although it is clear (again, to those interested) that they evolved from a common ancestor."-
First are they unable to produce offspring? And if not, why do we know that once in a century they won't succeed?
On the topic of probability. It's nice that you agree with me because it is necessary to examine the probability of both explanations. And that's exactly what I did. I examined the probability of obtaining a functional sequence. Here you (and the supporters of evolution) disagree with me and claim that the probability problem can be broken down into small steps, thus solving it. But as I demonstrated with human engineering systems, this is impossible. Every child knows that there are no small steps on the way to a car, a watch or an mp player. And evolution falls into the zero probabilities.
"About the infinity of the universe. Yes, I believe it is infinite. I see no reason to think otherwise." -
So the scientists you are flat with think differently than you. The science estimate is something like 23^10 stars in the universe. and an estimated age of 14.5 billion years. Thus it can be estimated that there will not be more than 50^10 mutations (in bacteria) since the beginning of the universe on Earth.
"About the car. My claim that car designs have evolved. Not by natural selection."
In fact, this is also not accurate in my opinion. After all, humans are part of nature. Hence, nature is also responsible for the development of stationary cars.
"But, in the beginning there were very simple plans."-
No car is simple. And also switching between a simple and complex car is not easy at all.
Joins the discussion
Who are you responding to?
"Inextricable complexity" is a term that has been debunked even before you first heard of it...
So you're saying that there is no such thing as "inextricable complexity"? Does that mean our body is a discharge complex? And the eye and the whip are also discharge systems?
There's no point in talking to an idiot liar.
To be precise... then be precise.
Besides, what did you do two degrees in? In inextricable complexity? 🙂
Anyone can see that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And above all, why are you hiding behind a pseudonym like "Nisim"? Maybe you're even an orange rose?
what do you have to hide
(And answers like "I brought my e-mail address to my father" will not be accepted as any proof of anything).
Anonymous (unidentified) user
For the sake of historical accuracy - you should be accurate!!! The concept of irreducible complexity was coined by Michael Beehey in his book Darwin's Black Box published in 1996. Beehey, by the way, attributed the idea to Paley, and not justifiably. The concept of complexity is of course much older and is the basis of the Theological argument, which has been known since before Socrates. But - this is a different argument.
Of course none of you have read Bihi's book. Behe moved away from Darwin's famous eye model and spoke of disassembly rather than assembly.
According to Bihi's definition, a stone arch is unbreakable. This is not my definition and I don't understand what the argument is about. Such an arch exists in nature, and is not the result of intelligent planning.
Understand - I do not support and do not believe in this nonsense. I have no idea why your (your) disdain. I have two degrees in this field. Believe me I have some idea about it...
And for the sake of historical accuracy (and especially for you Nisim who loves to learn so much and not understand):
"Inextricable complexity" is a term that has been debunked before you've even heard of it for the first time.
Machal explained to you. you did not understand.
Machel said he was tired of wasting his time on you. And you say he was wrong.
When you asked us to explain. We explained.
And now we see that you don't even understand what "inextricable complexity" is.
But you are convinced that you are right wherever he is.
xianghua
You are right in your assertion that it is difficult to determine what sex is. Indeed - there is no unequivocal definition for this. We all agree that a lion and a tiger are different species, but they know how to mate with each other and even produce offspring that are not sterile. And we know animals of the same species that cannot produce offspring.
If the example of seagulls is not acceptable to you (although it is indeed accepted by biologists who understand what it is about...) think of an African elephant and an Asian elephant. These are two different species, although it is clear (again, to those in the know) that they evolved from a common ancestor.
On the topic of probability. O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial precisely because of your mistake. Read about and get back to me with a one and a half page summary. Before that, there is nothing to continue on the topic of probability for events that have already happened..
The example of the lottery only shows that you did not understand the subject. And I will explain: you described an event and gave 2 possible explanations for it. What needs to be done is to check the probability of each of the two explanations. This is very true. But - can you put a number on the probability of the existence of an intelligent planner? You very quickly draw a number for the probability of creating DNA, of course without any substantiation...
Regarding the infinity of the universe. Yes, I believe it is infinite. I see no reason to think otherwise.
about the car My claim that car designs have evolved. Not by natural selection. But, in the beginning there were very simple designs. At each stage, changes were made to these plans (which were not necessarily clear that they would succeed). Some of these changes caught on (from no inheritance) and that's how we got to the cars we have today - and it's clear to all of us that these designs will continue to evolve, according to the changing needs.
Let's try to understand each other. Are you claiming that it is impossible that Darwin's theory (as it is known today - Darwin himself was wrong in the details) is correct?
By the way,
Reacting like: miracles, someone, just one, another one, "I", hole in the mouth, blowing water, skeptic (I must have forgotten someone else),
They comment that they regularly write nonsense, even though the smart commenters on the site put them in the wrong time and time again.
Just like the commenters: Hingua, Mathematical Biology, a bunch of on-duty rabbis, and a few more who have already been blocked and are coming back here under fake names.
The commenter pretending to be "I"
You seem more excited than him. You are probably a miracle too. )
And that's what you have to say in your defense?
You are such "miracles"...
From now on I will call the fools on this site "miracles". for your honor D:
Miracles,
Don't get excited about it, it's a regular troll that once appeared as "Ghost Moon" and "Blowing Water" and many other names. It was blocked time and time again by my father and will probably be blocked again. There is no commenter that he did not quarrel with, including M. Rothschild who unwillingly is his own guru whom the idiot tries to resemble, Israel Shapira and many other smart commenters here on the site. He never contributes anything except nonsense, curses and slander. just ignore it.
It's not for nothing that you remain anonymous 🙂
Miracles
Oh, miracles.
And then you still say that Makhal is wrong..
Not only do you say that he is wrong, you also claim that he did not explain to you at all....
You will soon say that Makhal did not participate in the discussions at all, but you proved to him that he was wrong about everything...
heart'.
You are wrong. A salt crystal works this way because there are physical constraints. Which is not the case in biological systems. You think they invented the ?rna world for nothing. This is just to escape the low probabilities. Otherwise as mentioned we can claim that the first cell developed in Mecca. But no scientist would argue that. He will be laughed at.
Nisim, are you asking what is wrong with your arguments? Quite a few. First, it is not possible to determine what a ringed species is. The reason for this is simple - there are species that produce offspring only rarely. That is, it is possible that what you think of as a ring species is not a ring species at all.
Regarding inextricable complexity. A pile of sand does meet the definition you gave. After all, if you remove a number of grains from the bottom of the pile, it will collapse. I gave the examples of cars and watches as evidence for the existence of inextricable complexity in human engineering, as well as in biological systems. And the fact that no one has ever been able to prove yet that complexity of the above kind can develop gradually speaks volumes.
you said:
"The first direction is that probability does not speak about the past but only about the future."
Not really. If the chance of developing a biological system is for that matter one in a million. After all, even if it happened, it means that the chances of it happening were slim. And in general, the whole discussion is about the question of whether it happened. And if the chances are too low, then we have reason to assume that he is not.
Consider the following example: A person repeatedly wins the lottery a thousand times in a row for the big prize. And here it turns out that his father is, for that matter, the CEO of the lottery. In your opinion, there is no need to investigate the case since every probability is possible? of course not.
"The other direction is that probability has no meaning in an infinite universe. It doesn't matter how improbable something is - it must happen in an infinite universe."
Here I agree. Do you think the universe is infinite?
” Do you agree with me that a watch and a car are designed right? So I claim that their designs are definitely the result of evolution"-
So now a car is also not evidence of planning?
anonymous:
Here is a quote from your words:
"It is true that the chance of that is minimal. But the chances of life arising from inanimate matter are also low, yet here we are."
You have a gross error.
The chances of life arising from inanimate matter are extremely high.
The reason is due to several factors:
1) As already mentioned: the chance of something happening that has already happened is one hundred percent.
There is an a priori probability and there is an a posteriori probability.
The chance of getting the result 6 in the cube is one hundred percent if it is known that the die has already fallen and the result was 6.
2) The chances (a priori) of creating organic substances in nature is not fundamentally different from the chances of creating non-organic crystals.
And I say again: I did not invent this concept and it is not local to define it. I explained to you the accepted meanings of the concept and my opinion on these meanings.
A stone arch is not a hole in a coin and is not a rock that has partially collapsed. You have been directed to an arch in nature that is made of rocks. I unloaded this arc, but its mere existence does not prove the existence of an intelligent planner. What exactly do you not understand here??
I don't understand what you want to say. Inextricable complexity is an argument against evolution (which I don't accept). And you say there is no such thing at all. Beyond the fact that you insist on not understanding what the concept means, you claim that the concept, which you do not understand, does not describe any reality.
Maybe bring one argument of your own that you also agree with...
"Bihi claims that inextricable complexity requires an intelligent planner" -
Suppose that, in order to break the coin into two halves, an intelligent planner (a person) is needed.
Is the falling of the coin exactly on the train track, and the removal of the coin with the help of a moving train passing on top of the coin, not an intelligent act?
It is true that the chance of this is minimal. But the chances of life arising from inanimate matter are also low, yet here we are.
The intelligent planner does not participate in the celebration.
The participants are: randomness, probability and chance.
something
"Is God a discharge system or not?" - Ask your religious friends.
Miracles
I asked you for an interpretation in your own words, not Bihi's. And you immediately write a commentary by Bihi and add a commentary by Darwin.
...
We will take the whole number "1". Can it not be broken down into two halves?
We will take a (round) coin.
Make a hole in the center of the coin.
Break the coin into two pieces.
Didn't you get two bows?
Break both arches in half (each).
Didn't you get four smaller bows?
If you keep breaking them up to a certain limit, won't you, on a macroscopic level, get a straight piece?
Did the drift that creates a hole in the center of the hill so that the upper part remains in the ground, not create the structure of an arch?
Won't the disintegration of the central stone (which holds the structure itself) of stones that form a structure similar to an arch cause its disintegration?
I ask again: what is your interpretation of the concept: "unbreakable complexity"?
Is God a discharge system or not?
ב
You're right. But agree with her that an arc of 3 stones over an abyss is not a discharge.
I argue that inextricable complexity does not require an intelligent designer. Keshet proves it.
Beyond that - we do not know of an inextricable biological system.
Suppose there is an arch made of stones with the following dimensions:
Width 10 meters, length 10 meters, height 0.1 meter (10 centimeters).
Suppose we blast the lowest stone.
Will the arch collapse?
It is likely that if we do it smoothly the arch will only decrease in height but not collapse.
That is :
There are arcs that are discharges. That is, it is possible in a certain way to disassemble parts of them and the rainbow will still exist.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
I will divide my words into two.
1) Beehee defined the concept of inextricable complexity (in the book Darwin's Black Box). He said that a system is inextricably complex if, and only if, no part of the cave can be removed without impairing its function. According to this definition, a stone arch is an indecomposable system. Bihi argues that inextricable complexity requires an intelligent planner. Beyond the fact that no biological system is known to be non-dischargeable, an arch of stones in nature contradicts this claim.
2) Darwin (in the Origin of Species) wrote that it seems completely illogical to think that a complex system like the eye could have developed in evolution, but, if the eye could have developed in stages, and at each stage the developing biological system would have been used for a role (any role, not just sight) - then there is no Any problem in the theory of evolution. Here too - we do not know of any biological system that has no way of developing in stages.
And again regarding the arch - according to Michael Behe's definition (the one who defined the concept) - a stone arch is not a discharge. There is no room for interpretation here - it is not about building an arch - it is about breaking it down...
something
""Machelle Rothschild showed you that what one could not find a way to dismantle, he actually succeeded"
Anonymous, didn't you demonstrate here a situation in which something appeared to be "non-freak" and Makal showed that it actually was a freak".
- No.
I did not refer to the discharge or non-discharge of any example. And I did not demonstrate its discharge or non-discharge.
What I demonstrated is the situation itself:
In which one (Nissim - in the context of the text) did not find how to disassemble and another (MR) did find how to disassemble.
Literally.
Simpler? OK:
You don't know how to disassemble a car.
A car mechanic does know how to disassemble a car.
Is a car inexhaustible? In your eyes, yes.
But this is an example of the fact that there are situations where one did not find how to disassemble and the other did find how to disassemble.
The fact that you are imagining things that are not there is because you are taking things out of context and trying to connect them with things that are somewhere else.
Miracles
Explain to us how you interpret the term "inextricable complexity". (in your words not Bihi's words)
Shingo:
You get confused.
According to what you say there is no possibility of creating a salt crystal.
The crystal contains billions of atoms and the chance that they will crystallize is of the order of 2 to the power of a billion.
You have an error in thinking.
You believe that each and every molecule falls into place randomly.
And it is not.
Just like in salt the atoms must arrange themselves in a crystal form without a hint of coincidence.
In the same way, the biological molecules must arrange themselves in a certain way without a trace of chance.
Contingency is expressed only in cases of deviation from the usual.
Just as there will be anomalies in a salt crystal, there will also be anomalies in a chain of biological molecules.
Just as a salt crystal is bound by reality under certain conditions, so also a chain of biological molecules is bound by reality under certain conditions.
Evolution is a process in which the chains change and not a process of creating a chain by the random accumulation of molecules.
The process of changing an existing chain is much faster than creating a chain randomly.
This is me….
xuanhua
Let me explain to you again what ring sex is. It's really not complicated. The intention is that there is a geographical sequence of items, so that each item can breed with its neighbor. But - the edges cannot multiply between them. I have given you 2 known examples of such species. I know this contradicts your point, this dip doesn't make it wrong.
A pile of sand is not an example of inextricable complexity. I suggest you read Bihi - because he understands himself exactly the opposite of you 🙂 Bihi claims that there are inseparable biological structures and therefore evolution is not true.
A watch and a car are not examples of evolution - on the contrary: they are examples of planning. I don't understand why you keep repeating this nonsense….
Even in probability you do not understand much, from two directions. The first direction is that probability does not talk about the past but only about the future. Bayes' theorem talks about the past - but it is not applicable to the case you mentioned. If you want I can give you details.
The other direction is that probability has no meaning in an infinite universe. It doesn't matter how improbable something is - it must happen in an infinite universe.
You are making a game that is not legitimate. You take an artifact that appears to be designed and argue that it cannot be the product of evolution. But - I claim that living things do not seem planned. That's what you need to address, and not repeat the car/watch mantra.
And you know what? Do you agree with me that a watch and a car are designed right? So I argue that their designs are definitely the result of evolution. Go back in time and discover a sequence of plans for these artifacts. The car, for example, started from a stone or a rolling log. The clock started (for the sake of argument) from a vessel that contained water and dripped.
What is wrong with my arguments?
Well, miracles. We will make order in the mess. First, I don't think you have internalized why it is not possible to determine what a ringed species is. According to you, even an infertile person cannot produce offspring and is therefore a cyclic species. I do not intend to grind this topic again.
Now to the issue of inextricable complexity - in your opinion, is Bihi claiming that a pile of sand meets the definition of inextricable complexity and thus proves that evolution is possible? I hope you're joking. I gave you an excellent example of a car. Suppose we have a replicating material. The supporters of evolution claim that replicating matter that undergoes occasional changes and natural selection is enough to reach high levels of complexity like a watch or even a spaceship. These are the basic conditions for any evolution. Now I ask you - do you think there are functional steps from such replicating material towards a car, toaster or robot? Because if not, the whole gradual argument is gone, and evolution is refuted by clear probability weights. If we are required to jump 2-3 components at the same time, it is 2-3 genes. One gene is encoded by 1000 nucleotides on average (a space of 1000^4 possibilities), and 14.5 billion years of mutations are nothing.
"Michael Rothschild showed you that what one could not find a way to dismantle, he actually succeeded"
Anonymous, didn't you demonstrate here a situation in which something seemed "non-freak" and actually showed that it was actually a freak?
Miracles and second, exactly! According to xianghua all these rainbows had to be created by an intelligent planner, like clouds that show enormous complexity, grains of sand in a dune, not to mention a rainbow in the sky. In short, the God of the gaps, once it seemed that all these required a planner, today the shotton and tomorrow who knows. Creationists will always find another unknown gap and jump on it as proof of a designer.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
And you still don't bother to explain to me where I'm wrong. Maybe at least cite my claim that is so wrong?
I want to learn from my learned friends, but you prevent me from doing so... 🙁
Just one
""Machal showed you that what one could not find a way to dismantle, he (M.R.) actually succeeded"
It is implied from this sentence that you claim that Makhal was able to show that every process is a freak"
- How did you come to such a strange conclusion? What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Miracles
"Machal told me I was wrong but didn't bother to explain why. You tell me I'm wrong and don't bother to explain why."
From all trouble and trouble, time after time to explain to you. You probably didn't understand the logic in the end.
Why should I repeat his words, you won't understand the logic anyway.
Just one
""Machal showed you that what one could not find a way to dismantle, he (M.R.) actually succeeded"
It is implied from this sentence that you claim that Makhal was able to show that every process is a freak"
- How did you come to such a strange conclusion? What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Miracles
"Michael told me I was wrong but didn't bother to explain why. You tell me I'm wrong and don't bother to explain why."
- Machal took the trouble to explain to you again and again. You probably didn't understand in the end.
So what's the point of me repeating his words? After all, even then you won't understand the logic.
(And I really don't care if you understand or not. It's your problem that you have to deal with)
Just one
"Michael.R showed you that what one could not find how to dismantle, he (M.R) actually succeeded"
It is implied from this sentence that you claim that Michael R. was able to show that every process is a freak"
- How did you come to such a strange conclusion? What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Miracles
"Michael told me I was wrong but didn't bother to explain why. You tell me I'm wrong and don't bother to explain why."
- Machal took the trouble to explain to you again and again. You probably didn't understand in the end.
So what's the point of me repeating his words? After all, even then you won't understand the logic.
(And I really don't care if you understand or not. It's your problem that you have to deal with)
Click here to
Look for a place called Immortal Bridge located in China. An example of an inexhaustible arc 🙂
Rainbows do exist in nature.
If it had any advantage then there would be a lot more bows.
In evolution, the structure that has an advantage over other structures is preserved.
Click here to
look here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Immortal_Bridge
This is an example of inextricable complexity, in the sense that removing one rock will cause it to disintegrate. According to the claim of xianghua and his friends - this bow proves that there is a God.... 🙂
B, there are natural arches in nature
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%A9%D7%AA_%D7%98%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA
ב
You are confusing concepts. The arc has inextricable complexity. Go read the definition in the book - Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behey. Removing every stone from a bow will cause it to disintegrate - therefore it is not disassembly. I don't understand why anyone thinks to argue about this…
Your sentence "at least some of the chains would line up in the shape of a rainbow" only emphasizes that you didn't understand the idea.
You say that inextricable complexity can be created by the process of evolution. This is true (in my opinion). But - today we have no reason to think that in living beings there is indeed an inextricable complexity.
The Rainbow: Discharge Complexity!
Let's suppose that in nature all kinds of stones would be attached to each other in all kinds of forms.
It is likely that chains of stones would have formed.
If chains had a certain advantage over individual stones then there would be a natural situation where chains of stones exist.
At least some of the chains would line up in the shape of a bow.
If the bow had any advantage then there was a natural situation where there were bows made of chains of stones.
Anonymous (unidentified) user
Michael told me I was wrong but didn't bother to explain why. You tell me I'm wrong and don't bother to explain why.
Do you have something smarter to say?
xianghua
There is no "methodical" connection here. I explained to you why they are an annular species. Don't understand if you don't want to.
Regarding the rocks: according to Bihi's definition - a pair of rocks leaning on each other are an example of inextricable complexity. Do you disagree with the definition of the inventor of the term? 🙂
Anonymous, I think he made it out of this sentence you posted earlier:
"Michael.R showed you that what one could not find a way to dismantle, he (M.R) actually succeeded"
It is implied from this sentence that you claim that Michael.R was able to show that every process is a freak, if not what did you mean?
Anonymous, I think he made it out of this sentence you posted earlier:
"Machelle Rothschild showed you that what one could not find a way to dismantle, he (M.R.) actually succeeded"
It is implied from this sentence that you claim that Michael.R was able to show that every process is a freak, if not what did you mean?
someone
"Anonymous user, I didn't understand what interest you have in showing that every process is a freak, don't you and your friends (supporters of intelligent design) shout all the time that there are organs in the body that are not freaks and could not have been created gradually?"
Where did you get it from?
Miracles
You are wrong.
But if Makhal got tired of explaining to you because he saw that you don't learn and don't understand, then what's the point of me explaining to you?
To someone,
The exact same thing can be said about every organ in the body, including the rod. The same xianghua who used to be mathematical biology and is now xianghua again doesn't get this point, even though I wrote it over and over again, in a duplicate debate that used to be here. When he writes that the shoton is indestructible, he not only has to refute what Shannon and science and Wikipedia say, but to prove that there is no way to reach the shoton even through wider structures that have shrunk over time (just like our bridge). This, of course, cannot be done and what must not be forgotten is that the burden of proving that complexity is inextricable is solely on the claimant and a vague acceptance of a replicating clock and car is not admissible.
Miracles,
a) If, for that matter, you saw that certain species of seagulls were unable to raise young. Do you think they are ringed species?
b) Regarding the inextricable complexity. So now you're comparing two rocks to the complexity of engines and cars? Is stacking one rock impossible? Is there a connection here to evolution or in general to complex and functional systems?
someone
you are not right Pay attention to the definition I wrote earlier for the complexity of discharge - the thinking word is "discharge". An arc cannot be disassembled step by step. The definition is important - because Bihi tried to show that there are mechanisms that cannot be reached in stages.
What Anonymous is trying to claim is exactly Bihi's claim - because non-freak biological mechanisms exist then the theory of evolution is wrong. I have shown that this argument is wrong, for several reasons.
Miracles, if you can show that the process of filling the supporting material under the arch and then removing it in stages is possible, then the process of building the arch also falls into the category of "unloading complexity".
Anonymous user, I didn't understand what interest you have in showing that every process is a freak, don't you and your friends (supporters of intelligent design) shout all the time that there are organs in the body that are not freaks and could not be created gradually?
Why is my comment stuck?
Anonymous (unidentified) user
Michael Rothschild is wrong. His right to be wrong. The one who coined the term "inextricable complexity" is Michael Bihi. In his own words:
composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning
A bow cannot be dismantled - remove any stone and everything collapses. It is clear that the arch can be filled with sand and dismantled, and that is how it can also be built. But it does not contradict.
On the other hand - no biological mechanism of inextricable complexity is known today. Beehee thought he had found some, but he was proven wrong.
And you will be surprised - there is also a third party. Let's assume that we do find a biological mechanism that is not a freak. Let's be extreme - let's assume that it is proven that only an intelligent being can build such a mechanism (of course this is not proven today). Who said that the intelligent being is not another living being, and this being is free from inextricable complexity.
Miracles
"For example, there are rock bridges in several places in the world, created as a result of erosion. Therefore - we have unequivocal proof that there is no need for intelligent planning in order for inextricable complexity to be created." –
In one of the threads from a long time ago (with your participation and Hingoe's participation), Michal Rothschild showed you that what one could not find a way to dismantle, he (MR) actually succeeded.
You show in your responses that you have not learned yet.
xianghua
Please note: there are cases of inextricable complexity in nature and we know that they are not the result of intelligent planning. For example, there are rock bridges in several places in the world, created as a result of erosion. Therefore - we have unequivocal proof that there is no need for intelligent planning in order for inextricable complexity to be created.
And come on - don't kid yourself that the inextricable complexity of two components requires an intelligent planner. It's just stupid: two rocks leaning on each other - a lot happens in nature. And say - have you never played dukes???
You still don't realize that there is no continuous need between a human and a chimpanzee? What is needed is a continuous transition from both to the common ancestor. If you don't see it then we don't have a common language.
Ring sex - read what I wrote again. Factually it exists and I explained how to know it. Again, if you don't understand that then we are not speaking the same language.
Audio. You have your own solid opinion that does not depend on the facts. Shall we end the conversation? It's getting boring...
Hingo
It's not that you're proving anything to them (you're not), but what you're doing is making fun of Resh.
Miracles, you said:
"Only an intelligent person can create a car, and it really cannot be developed in stages."-
Excellent miracles. I challenge you to prove that there is a fundamental difference that separates functional gradualism in a car from functional gradualism in evolution. I claim that there is no difference and I gave as an example the complexity of a car. We both agree that inextricable complexity exists in the car. This is already a significant step. Now you just have to explain why such complexity exists in the world of human engineering but not in the world of nature.
A living being, on the other hand, can also be developed in stages. "-
As mentioned above - the model please. Remember that too big jumps - even of two components, is too much.
"A living body is made up of many parts (trillions), these parts are not geometrically simple, are not homogeneous and perform many functions. An engineer calls it "lack of planning".
Say, are you serious? In your opinion, the very fact that the human body is so complex and performs millions of seemingly purposeful functions indicates a lack of planning? And why do you mean "geometrically simple"? Is the eye not geometrically simple? Is a snowflake simply geometric?
"The claim of evolution is that man and chimpanzee have an ancestor 6-7 million years ago. Since then the two species have moved away from the ancestor and therefore there are so and so different genes."-
And you didn't actually add anything to what I said. What exactly are you arguing about? Not clear. What I said is that there is no gradual transition between them. that's it.
"There are cases of different species that can definitely breed with each other, and there are cases where members of the same species cannot breed with each other"-
Well And if any species is considered natural. And suddenly you find out that it's not. How can you tell if ring sex even exists?
Oops, an error in identification, I didn't notice that I was talking to the creation of which the logic is from and on.
This is a pointless argument.
xianghua
You are exactly on point!! Only an intelligent person can create a car, and it really cannot be developed in stages. A living being, on the other hand, can also be developed in stages. Some of the steps we know, some we don't. But - there is no element in a living body that is proven that it cannot be developed in stages.
Now note an important point: the difference between a planned entity and a natural entity. The designed entity (the car, or Paley's watch) is built from a few parts, these parts are geometrically simple (the circle of glass in the watch), homogeneous (the aluminum block of the engine), and each component performs one simple function - these are the signs of intelligent design (ask any engineer) . There are good reasons for these features!
A living body - made up of many parts (trillions), these parts are not geometrically simple, are not homogeneous and perform many functions. An engineer calls it "lack of planning".
Next - you talked about genetic differences between a chimpanzee and a human. Here we see your lack of understanding of evolution. It's ok... not everyone can understand simple logic. The claim of evolution is that man and chimpanzee have an ancestor 6-7 million years ago. Since then both species have moved away from the ancestor and therefore have such and such different genes.
Regarding the seagulls - you found something on Google but didn't fully understand it... There are cases of different species that can definitely breed with each other, and there are cases where members of the same species cannot breed with each other. that's how life is…..
And ringed species are ringed species - decisive (further) evidence for evolution in action.
And another thing:
"But this is exactly what I want, for them to say that wolves and dogs are separate species" - and they would be right. Because the domesticated dog is really a subspecies of the common wolf.
spring
It's good that you didn't try to "prove" that the dog and man are mammals and therefore they are definitive proof that there was evolution.
(With 'proof' methods like yours, it's no wonder that Chingue and his ilk continue to argue with you).
"All the breeds of dogs that developed from the wolf in a process of artificial selection (evolution) are conclusive proof that evolution is indeed capable of turning an animal from one species into an animal from another species" - the dog and the wolf are of the same species.
"And if the creationists get smart and say that a dog and a wolf belong to the same species, then so do a chimpanzee and a human." - You are welcome to jump on a safari and get used to a coupe. Tell us about the offspring that will be born to you.
You make a whole salad between the term "species" and the term "species" and "subspecies".
Well, it is appropriate to make a separation between speciation and the development of organisms with new complex systems. I gave a simple test to demonstrate the feasibility of evolution - is an intelligent person able to gradually create a car, when each step is effective in itself. If not - why is it possible in biological systems?
As for the wolves and the dogs - they may or may not have a common origin (depending on unique genes). If they share different systems - then they did not have a common origin. Regarding the human and the chimpanzee - in fact, a human has at least 60 unique genes. Which proves that there is indeed no gradual transition from ape-like to human.
Regarding the speciation of seagulls, etc. - the truth is that there are documented cases in which both species were considered ringed species. And then it turned out they weren't. That is, even speciation is very difficult to measure. Assuming they can reproduce and produce offspring once in 100 births, it's very hard to keep track of that.
Anonymous user, but this is exactly what I want, for them to say that wolves and dogs are separate species, which is exactly what I was trying to prove (that evolution is able to create separate species from the same ancestor).
spring
It's not really connected.
Nor will they agree with you that the cat and the lion are from the cat family.
After all, the lion does: rrrrrrrr
And the cat says: meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
You're right, I didn't think about that, indeed a Siberian sled dog probably won't survive in the frozen pole if there isn't a person there to feed it.
Bottom line, all the breeds of dogs that developed from the wolf through a process of artificial selection (evolution) are conclusive proof that evolution is indeed capable of turning an animal from one species into an animal from another species, and if the creationists get smart and say that a dog and a wolf belong to the same breed, then so do a chimpanzee and a human.
Is the difference between a human and a chimpanzee greater than the difference between a wolf and a Pinscher dog? Or between a wolf and a giant Dane? I really don't think so.
spring
Yes, they survive in the snow, when fed. Release them in the forest... or in a desert area...
I definitely agree with you. The basis of Darwin's idea is his collection of observations on domesticated animals. He saw what the T-blood was capable of doing in a short period of time, and imagined what would happen in nature under conditions of competition.
Regarding domesticated dogs that survive in the snow, I think you forgot the famous Husky dog that pulls snow sleds in the Pole and lives in very difficult conditions of freezing wind and temperature of tens of degrees below zero.
In any case, all the breeds of dogs that evolved from the wolf are decisive and irrefutable proof of evolution, all the excuses in the world will not help the deniers.
spring
I use the wolf as one of the pieces of evidence that natural selection is better than artificial selection. The domestic dog underwent artificial selection - and look what you get: dogs with many mental and physical problems (even the German shepherd dog, which looks a bit like a wolf, suffers from medical problems). On the other hand - nature gave us the gray wolf, an amazing animal that survives in difficult conditions. Show me a domesticated dog that will survive a week in the snow...
Thanks Nissim. To this day I have not come across a religious person who denies that the dogs in his home are all wolves, it will be interesting to see if in their eyes a dog and a wolf are one species or two separate species of animal.
In terms of physical variation, I don't think the difference between a chimpanzee and a human is greater than the difference between a wolf and a pinscher, dachshund, Great Dane or poodle.
What do you think of the comparison? I'm right ?
spring
I liked your wording "opponents of evolution". Kerry: Evolution is true, but it does not fit our agenda.
Two questions for all opponents of evolution:
1. Do you agree that all dogs today are descendants of wolves?
2. Do you think dogs and wolves are two separate species, or one species?
xianghua
In one word - what????????????
We have 2 different species of seagulls that have a proven genetic sequence between them. These are completely different species, which cannot interbreed. This is different from humans in Australia and the US. But - if these two peoples do not interbreed for a large number of years then they can certainly become different species. We know many cases of populations that were separated and became different species. An example that comes to mind right now is an African elephant and an Asian elephant - they are indeed "elephants" but they are very different from each other.
Regarding the lizards - who even mentioned lizards?? What new system? I brought another example of proven evolution, and you are talking about organs...
To say that evolution is not true, you must bring a very strong argument. One such argument is enough. "Unlikely" is not an acceptable argument. And that it hurts the religious faith of believers - maybe they will finally understand the mistake of blind faith - something that does not exist in science.
You must learn what the theory of evolution is. You throw out concepts from the hip, things you read on Christian creationist websites.
Humans can reproduce because there is a constant transport connection, seagulls from distant areas cannot reproduce and are therefore technically different species.
Miracles, not really to really not.
The seagulls remain seagulls, with the same systems. It's like saying that an Australian and an American are new species because they don't usually breed with each other.
Regarding the lizards - in fact, I have not yet come across a study that finally examined what is the genetic change required for the cecal valves. It is known that related species of the same lizards also have the same valves. Which points to the fact that it is something trivial. Maybe a change of mutation-two that causes the expansion/narrowing of the intestinal wall. And maybe even pseudogene activation. In any case, even according to the theory of evolution, organs cannot be created in one fell swoop. And hence it is not possible that this is a new system.
sick of pinks.
There are many types of pinks. The difference is mainly in the colors, but apparently over time the mutations also change the genes and create new species.
someone
I did not know this pattern. An example I do know is salamanders in the state of California. There they surround a wide valley and the phenomena are similar.
Another fascinating example for you (certain people won't understand the example....) It's birds called Gold's Finch in northern Australia. There the birds were separated for a period and after that they mixed again - although there is a lot of resemblance, they are already separate species.
It is amazing that in 2013 people still claim that evolution is not true, following the link of miracles here is another example, another detail that I read elsewhere about the lizards and does not appear in this article is that the lizards change along the perimeter of the island, and those that meet the lizards at the other end are no longer able to breed together, In other words, a new species of animal was created for us:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
xianghua
I want to give you one example, and not the only one, that species do change. The example is a subspecies of seagulls found in England. If you move from England to North America you will find another subspecies that can interbreed with the English subspecies. The North American subspecies can also breed with the Siberian subspecies. If you continue west you will find other subspecies, until you return to England. But - then you will find that the English subspecies you arrived at cannot breed if the subspecies we started from.
That is - we found a sequence of species whose ends are actually different species.
There are other such cases. In total, we brought evidence that one species can change into another.
So ok…. We refuted your one point that there is no evidence of species changing into other species.
xianghua – 0
Darwin -1
What is your next point?
Xiang Hua:
We said and repeated and said:
A bacterium does not turn into an elephant and an elephant does not turn into a bacterium.
The collection of genes of the bacterium yields a bacterium.
The collection of the elephant's genes produces an elephant.
but:
Over time, genes of a bacterium and also genes of an elephant were created.
Hello Gabi. If the process takes millions of years, how do you know it is actually happening? In other words: how can the claim that a bacterium can gradually turn into an elephant be tested?
What environmental stress will cause the clock to gradually evolve? Do you think that evolutionary explanations are missing in such a case? Evolutionists will be able to argue that humans evolved alongside such clocks. And thus those watches helped them to know the time. No problem for evolution.
As for the shotton - in fact the opposite is true. This is a lecture by Prof. Kenneth Miller. Miller claims that since systems have been found in nature with some components similar to those in Shuton, hence the Shuton could have gradually developed from other systems. But Miller is wrong - similar components can also be found in electrical devices: in castles, wiring, monitors, etc. But this does not mean that one electrical system can be gradually converted to another. Even by an intelligent factor.
xianghua, evolution is a slow process that takes place over hundreds of millions of years, your unreasonable demand to see within such a short life span a dog change into another animal is likened to the demand to see a baby turn into a 90 year old in a week.
The example with the clock is silly because you gave an example of an object that we know humans make for their needs, to see what time it is. What environmental pressure exists in nature that would cause some creature to start telling the time with a pair of hands? How will showing the exact time improve his chances of survival?
If there was such pressure, then there would be logic in your claim.
Regarding the gradual development of complex systems, there are countless examples, as a start search on YouTube about "the bacterial whip" (do a search in Hebrew and watch the short lecture).
Skeptic, how can you be "already convinced" if you haven't brought even one argument that is close to convincing?
When you make such delusional and illogical claims you must bring really strong evidence for anyone to even begin to be convinced that they are true.
What is the strongest proof you have that supports your illogical words?
I'm ready to hear.
Nissim Gabi,
You don't deserve a response, you don't innovate anything...
I only respond to those who are already convinced...
Let me put it this way: a replicating clock contains less complex dna than cats and dogs. And if such a watch is proof of planning, then so is nature itself. The theory of evolution has never proved that a dog can change into a new creature. All kinds of dogs are still…dogs. It is possible that the wolf and the dog share a common canine ancestor.
Miracles, when you see how a complex biological system could evolve gradually, your claim will have validity as an evolutionary explanation. Until then, nothing to talk about.
Skeptic, do you not realize that your explanations do not solve any problem? Don't you understand that in the end you have to explain how the factors that you claim direct everything that happens here came into being?
After all, they too had to be created somehow. You didn't solve any problem, you just complicated it.
xianghua, skeptic
You must understand something. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is an explanation. It explains how complexity is created from simplicity, without any need for an external planner.
Maybe there is an intelligent planner and maybe there isn't - but it is clear beyond any doubt that there is no need for such a planner. Some people don't want to accept this fact. It has been shown in studies that these people have lower intelligence. Don't kill the messenger - accept the facts as they are, and try to think about the meanings of these facts.
Skeptic - especially for you: it can be shown that "random" evolution, as you call it without understanding the subject, is stronger than any planned evolution. The proof is not complex, but requires knowledge of computer science, or a suitable mathematical background.
Distinguished Members,
I don't want to waste my time on people who don't deserve to know the truth.
The truth is simple: "evolution" is not random but a machine made by many, many intelligent beings.
Even human beings who create something new are a test of God...
Whoever wants to know this simple truth, will have to look into the matter in depth, and I have no interest in teaching him.
I would love to continue the discussion with those who are convinced of this basic fact, and hence try to understand more...
Not as a religious person, but as a reasonable person...
So far…
as I said :
Again and again they bring up the example of the eye which is so complex that it is impossible that it was created randomly.
Again and again the process of evolution that caused the formation of the eye is ignored.
What causes this stubbornness?
Certainly not the desire to explore the truth.
my back
"Either a complex thing can be created by itself, or not" - the truth is that the only thing that was created by itself is the universe - as far as we know to this day. Everything else, within the universe and making it up, evolved gradually and did not come into being by itself. This is the essence of the evolution process. To remind us, evolution is exciting not only in biology but also in other fields such as computers (algorithm) and probably more..
Hingoaaaaa
You reveal Fred's character traits. You are more stubborn than him, but more stupid. Maybe you are serious?
A cat's tail hair is made up of (relatively) many atoms. So is the clock. It is made up of many atoms.
The atoms that make up a hair are less diverse than the atoms that make up a watch. Because the watch consists of many different materials such as steel, iron, plastic, glass, etc. A hair is made up of less than that number of substances. So how is a hypothesis more complex?
You know what? don't answer me
"And the simple answer is that a planner who has no beginning is not required to be a planner"
No xianghua, that's a bad answer that only a person who doesn't exercise reason and logic can accept as an answer, the self-created clock argument has long since been blown to pieces, I can't believe you still continue to use this chewed up and irrelevant argument.
It is enough to look at all the types of dogs we have created through the process of evolution (domestication), dogs that look completely different from each other (poodle, pinscher, wolf, collie, bulldog, dachshund, great dane...) to understand that evolution is true and is happening before our eyes. And we created all this diversity in a short period of a few thousand years, so now think for yourself what changes can occur over hundreds of millions of years.
"Everything is solved for you, only the problem remains - how was God created?"
Skeptic, this is a very important question and very relevant to this discussion, it is not possible for you to try to grasp the stick at both ends, on the one hand you will insist that a germ of skepticism could not have been created on its own, but at the same time you will claim without batting an eyelid that the Creator who is billions of times more than this germ in every field and matter, is Yes created alone.
If you do not understand the huge contradiction and the incredible lack of logic in these two arguments of yours, then there is really nothing to add.
Decide, either a complex thing can be created by itself, or not. You can't do both.
It is very easy to prove that the world has a planner. After all, even the biggest proponents of evolution admit that even a hair on a cat's tail is much more complex than a standard human-made clock. They only claim that the rational explanation should be rejected since the cat, unlike inanimate objects, has the property of replication and accumulation of changes. But in fact the opposite is true, since, if we were to encounter a replicating theoretical clock. Even if it contained DNA and accumulated changes, it would still be clear proof of design.
Now the only question left is who planned the planner. And the simple answer is that a planner who has no beginning is not required to be a planner. And there is no more to complain about.
Hingo
Another time you?
Well, look, the eye evolved from a single photon. That's all you need to know to understand that your theory has been debunked.
Now are you ready to leave us alone?
skeptic
The main thing is that you "understood".
Besides, you didn't answer the question: "How was God created". So how was it really created? (if it exists).
Oh, sorry, yes you answered: "We will never know".
Well, well.. you convinced me that God exists.
You would have said from the beginning that you were trying to convince us that God exists, simply, you didn't know how to do it.. That way at least you would have been honest and fair with yourself at least.
Spring,
are you really serious
Everything is solved for you, only the problem remains "how was God created"?
So Avni wants to tell you that we will never know. Just like a bacterium tries to understand what a person is thinking...
I am sorry to state that you do not want to understand.
No explanation will help...
You have a lot of criticism, but you are very elegantly careful to ignore the question of God's creation.
I would like to pay respect to Linai, and tell him that he was the most honorable person I knew through Tsetim on the forums, there is a chance that we will meet again with respect
Spring and miracles. The truth is that evolution does not explain any of this. I gave as an example minimal complexity. The eye, like a camera, requires a minimal number of components in order to function minimally. If we assume that it is only 3 components, then evolution cannot explain how a minimal eye developed in a gradual process. This is her main weakness. And some say its refutation.
"I know the subject and this failed theory very well..."
Your words clearly demonstrate that you do not know the subject at all.
1. You claim that evolution is random, you have been proven by a simple example (camouflage feature) that evolution is not random at all and every time you perform this experiment you will get the same result (green insects with good camouflage in a greener forest will survive better than insects of other colors).
2. Evolution does not explain the formation of life, it is a completely different theory. Evolution only explains how life developed and diversified after it had already been created.
3. "But the problem with the theory is that it doesn't explain how they were created at all..."
Interesting, the same can be said about God... the ball came back to you.
And what about the evolution in Bnei Brak and Mea Shearim? There is a very high probability that she goes in the opposite direction.
skeptic
Evolution does not pretend to explain how life began. She explains how life developed from the moment suitable conditions were created: culture, diversity and heredity. From that moment on, evolution provides a satisfactory explanation for the forms of life that exist today.
Regarding the formation of life - for this there are several theories today, for example: the theories of Egan, Cairns-Smith and Monod.
I see no reason not to accept the theory of evolution. I would love to hear about one and only one point that indicates that there is another more reasonable solution.
Tabby,
You are trying to block me from commenting here.
It shows the face of the science you present here…
Avi,
I am not religious, and never have been.
regarding,
The example of the butterflies in the forest is one of the fallacies of the Acharian theory.
In terms of extinction, it is true,
But the problem with the theory is that it doesn't explain how they were created at all...
xianghua
You, like a skeptic, are talking nonsense. A statistical argument is not valid at all for something that happened in the past. I suggest you think about the following experiment: take a coin and toss it 100 times. You received a series, the probability of this series is 2 to the 100th power.
Can we conclude from this that the series is planned?
my back
"Every creature must have a planner" - every creature really must have a planner.
The problem is that it is not known what/who created the first creature.
The first creature (or rather the cell, or the material from which life arose) apparently evolved from inanimate matter. Scientifically. But the religious do not agree to this. Because the "science" they were raised and educated according to states that the first planner is a being called God. This is what they rave about.
And because science cannot disprove the non-existence of God, then they play on this point and make excuses.
B'
No one talked about Ein. But because you decided to do this and write about it just to have something to say - you brought up Hingoe from the ob. Shame on you.
Surely the eye cannot develop even in a trillion years, after all the rabbis said so, so it is probably true...
How many times does the nonsense of the Discovery Institute have to be refuted for it to enter your mind or is it so opaque that no correct scientific explanation can enter it but only those that have been distorted by rabbis/priests/kadis?
You're right, it's called the "Scarecrow Argument", see Wikipedia.
There are those who strive for the truth and there are those who strive to be considered righteous.
In order to be considered righteous, they distort reality:
They take a problem and bring it to a state of lack of solution. Then offer their solution.
They do this while silencing anything that might logically contradict their words.
A skeptic in which we will see together whether evolution is random, in which we will do a little thought experiment together: let's say we have a population of insects in a green forest of many colors and shades, and in the forest birds fly to them and try to hunt them for a meal. After several years when you go into the forest and make a sample of the amount of insects of each color - which insects do you think will be found in the greatest numbers? The black, blue, green or red bugs?
Think, answer, then tell me again that evolution is a random process.
"If I tell you that I don't know who "reason" is, will that detract from the facts?"
This will definitely detract from the objectivity of your review, if you believe that your creator created himself, then it turns out that you simply contradict your entire theory according to which every creature must have a planner, it simply knocks your entire theory to pieces.
Spring and second. The eye (or any other biological system) could not evolve even in a trillion years of mutations. The reason for this is a term called "minimal complexity". Each system requires a number of components for its minimal functioning. Hence such a complex system cannot develop gradually. The eye can be likened to a camera. And just like the simplest camera requires a number of components. So is the eye. In fact, the most minimal eyespot in nature requires close to 200 proteins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_apparatus
Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins
So yes, the skeptic is right.
Avi,
What is "only one ingredient"?
And what are the other ingredients?
If I tell you that I don't know who "reason" is, will that detract from the facts?
Spring,
Are you saying that evolution is not random?
After all, this is the main point of the theory "in biblical evolution"
Everything is a matter of interpretation, (everything is open and permission is given). The question with the views is examined fairly. The question of randomness can also be examined with the help of physics. Yakir Aharonov's opinion is interesting.
Who does not know the claim that a complex structure like an eye cannot be formed randomly from a collection of molecules?
It's just a shame that there is no connection between this claim and evolution.
Evolution makes no such claim.
The claim is that the eye evolved in a certain process.
And I add that it is not only that the eye can develop, but much more than that, that is, the eye is a reality-bound result of the evolutionary process.
First of all, you did not address what I wrote, I told you that evolution is not random, contrary to what you claimed.
Another thing, just explain to me how the planner was created that you claim planned all those that could not have been created by themselves.
Skeptic, are you by chance the blocked mercury?
Regardless, only one element of random evolution - no scientist thinks that all the genes are re-mixed in each generation, otherwise no generation would resemble its parents, the fact that the converts (pans) invent an imagined evolution that is easy for them to attack is not our problem.
Spring,
I have been following this theory for many years.
It is difficult to oppose a "solid scientific" Torah.
There are thousands of facts in the world of life that cannot be interpreted by random variables.
If I have to name them as a column, it will take me a month of work...
Contrary to your opinion, I know the subject and this failed theory very well...
"It's a shame Dabdin and we don't forget"
A skeptic annoys me that you write nonsense, if you attack any subject at least first understand what he is talking about. Evolution is not random, what determines the direction of development is natural selection, the living environment that puts pressure on the animals (by predators, food availability, temperature...) and forces them to develop in a certain direction.
The only thing that is random in evolution are the mutations that cause each animal to be slightly different from its parents (a darker fur color for example, or a slightly longer neck) but the process itself that filters which animal will survive and which will be preyed on is really, really not random.
First understand the subject you are talking about, then attack it.
What's wrong with randomness?
Nissim, the "theory of evolution" is fundamentally wrong, because it claims that evolution happened randomly,
without directed intelligence.
Everything that is true in "the Torah" is that there was an evolution of life, that is, a gradual development,
But it was random but purposeful by reason...
What is an atheist, a person who does not believe in a Creator or who does not believe that a Creator exists? The statement "If I could, I would put God on trial at the Hague Tribunal for war crimes" shows that the atheist Zvi Yanai believed in the existence of a Creator. In any case, may the memory of this dear Jew be blessed.
skeptic
What is wrong with the theory of evolution?
He had cancer
For many years I followed the newspaper "Mechvot".
You did not find in it any attempts to advertise or highlight the IBM company, where she worked for several years.
I appreciated Zvi Yanai's ability to think and analyze.
What bothered me, how could he be "blind" and worship the "random evolution" theory, which he tried to promote at every opportunity...
Minister Perry said "make science accessible to the public" and I continue "and the public threw science away and preferred superstitions"...
Remember the blessing
What did he die of?
For his unique work in the production and publishing of the journal "Thoughts" he deserved the Israel Prize. Of blessed memory.