Vil’amsburg Diaries: Drinking, Singing, Kissing, Crying

this piece is surreal; fantastic. No context.

Every facet of the universe is so unbelievably complex, that any single element within the whole sufficiently testifies to the handiwork of the Creator. If a magnificent work of art cannot be formed by merely spilling paint, certainly the entire world cannot have been fashioned by accident. For the logical mind, seemingly there is nothing more irrational than suggesting G-d not create the world.

Mitch —

“If a magnificent work of art cannot be formed by merely spilling paint…”

Who says it can’t? We find beauty in lots of random but natural phenomena. In fact, so much of art tries to capture that very randomness. A particularly beautiful waterfall, or the brightness of a dazzling sunset, or Victorian ladies lounging by a river.

First off, where the heck does this argument come in as a commentary to this literature piece?

NOW, to deal with your theology.
This is from the oldest argument for creationism. And it was posed by Cicero like this:
“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?” (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)

The argument is:

The watch is complex and therefore implies a creator. The universe is complex and therefore implies a creator.

My counter-arguments are:

1) You must demonstrate that only design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

2) from this sole argument we cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully “prepared or fashioned” the matter. We cant conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense. You also have to explain how this creator is a punisher, creator of hell, decides for people to burn for eternity, etc. And to assume that your religion versus the other 10,000 is true and all others are wrong is just as arrogant.

3) The creator of the universe must be even more complex than the universe. It thus also implies a creator. “God’s” creator will be even more complex, and so will also imply a creator. So on, ad infinitum. We either end up with an infinite regression, or, as the theists would have us do, we stop arbitrarily at “god” – but if we stop at “god” as being uncreated, isn’t it just as logical to stop at the universe as being uncreated?

Not only is the logic flawed, the hypothetical “god” is unnecessary, and it is more parsimonious to just say that the universe has no creator.

4) The process of making a watch from assorted pieces reduces entropy locally. Simply put, if you have a bunch of pieces it takes something outside those pieces to put work in to make a watch. If this was true for the creation of the universe, it would be safe to assume some greater thing outside the universe that grew more entropic to create it.

HOWEVER not all changes require work like that. If you have a bunch of magnets, it doesnt take any work on your part to make them form a big ball o’ magnets. In fact it takes work on your part to STOP them from forming said ball. Likewise it doesnt take any work for objects in space to stick together by gravity, nor does it take work for hydrogen under enough heat and pressure to fuse. These things all happen as easy as LETTING them happen.

It turns out that so far the progress of the entire universe can be explained by processes like that, processes which might create order and stability LOCALLY, but the universe as a WHOLE still grows more entropic.

The problem with the universe/nature is that like a watch, it too is designed, but from the bottom up, not from the top down. Most theiest miss this point.

Shauly, You mentioned in your last post that from this sole argument we cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully “prepared or fashioned” the matter. We cant conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense. You also have to explain how this creator is a punisher, creator of hell, decides for people to burn for eternity, etc…”

I agree with you that my initial post left out the most crucial point. I did not want to say to many heavy things right away as I am new to posting on this blog and wanted to first test the waters. Now that I see there are intelligent people reading this I will state the main point.

I know you will have no choice but to fight me as hard as you possibly can on this because if you accept what I am about to say, you will knock down a major intellectual wall you have put up to block G-d and Torah out of your life.

Nonetheless, I will say this to you and it is out of love.

Not only does the design and complexity of all created things in the universe testify to a Creator, but on top of all that the Creator created everything only for one creature in the universe–Mankind. The whole world with all of its infinite complexity was created for Man.

There are millions of examples of this. Everything is built in such a way that it will be of the utmost benefit in every possible way (physical, psychological, spiritual) to the crown of creation, Man.

This shows that not only is their design in nature but there is a purpose to all of this and that is the maintenance and education of mankind. I can start to list many examples of this but we can do that on a later post.

This is the basis on which the Torah makes its claim about reward and punishment, mitzva observance etc…It is all based on the premise that the whole world was made for man. I agree that if there is just this cosmic ingenious design in every blade of grass or every cell in the human body but yet it served no other purpose than to show off the power of the Creator, then your questioning of the Torah is on firm ground.

If though, it can be proven that the universe and all of its endlessly complex design was made solely for the purpose Man, then one has to then figure out what on earth he or she is doing here and how we best connect to all of this.

Mitch, so the reason I should now be forced to “knock down my wall of reason” is because of this argument? Lmao.

Ok. Just to recount what you just proposed.

1) I decided that there is a creator
2) I decided that he created everything for humans
3) If there is a creator, and he created it all for humans, humans should ask why
4) Therefore there is a god

Utter brilliance :p

Shauly,

At the end of the day it is your choice if you want to truly seek the truth or not.

Personally, I happen to believe in absolute truth. I believe in the Creator of the Universe, the truth of the Torah and all of the major principles of Torah thought. I believe in the uniqueness of Torah, the immortality of the Jewish people, the afterlife and everything else that classical Torah thought requires.

What you choose or if you choose not to decide is solely your choice. We could probably argue for years on this subject and at the end of the day it all boils down to whether we decide to have faith or not to have faith. No one ever became “religious” due to mathematical reasoning, or codes or any philosophical argument (although I happen to believe that believing in the Torah is more rational than not believing in the Torah).

Although I do believe in absolute truth, I do not believe anyone can actually “prove” the truth. I have enough evidence to support my decision rationally but at the end of the day I still have to rely on faith. I fully admit that and it does not bother me at all.

Therefore all we can do is take the information we have with our limited reasoning and make the best choices possible.

Most of us though are unable to make truly intellectual decisions as our emotions, social situation, media influences, college education and past often cloud our perception.

I firmly believe though, (and if you want to mock me on this feel free), that to the uncluttered mind belief in G-d is an obvious reality that no rational mind would ever question. That’s my humble opinion and if you are interested discussing this more I would be more than happy to set up time to do that.

I wish you peace and happiness.

@ mitch, I have peace and happiness, but thanx for the wishes anyways.

As far as choices go, I’d pick rational and intellect over superstition, supermans, medieval fossilized philosophies, and fantasies that changes from religion to religion, changes over the ages, changes at different places in the world, and even changes between person and person. I’d pick it any day of the week. Thanx for proposing your personal beliefs as an add to the 10,000 other beliefs, I donno, just in case it interests me one day.

The reason you say “We could probably argue for years on this subject” is because I have given you 4 arguments that abolish your assumption of a higher power through design, and while you not only don’t deal with it you also tell me to “knock down my world of intellect” and go into a whole barrage of your personal views on the world and non-sense that have nothing to do with your question or my answer -“out of love”.

And while you fully admit that its your own personal leap of faith that you cannot prove, you also assume that “no one can prove anything” since you can’t, and that “belief in G-d is an obvious reality that no rational mind would ever question” even though, again, you can’t prove or even muster up a rational argument for it.

I wouldve loved to discuss philosophy with you, if only you’d show at least one shred of sensible debate or argument. I love philosophy and I discuss it all the time, but I don’t love people taking blind leaps of faith for no apparent reason other than it suits them, and then coming coming to the table to convince me to be as blind. No thanx.

I feel your anger and your pain. I also feel the arrogance at which you present the correctness of your views. That is the first sign that you are really not sure about them. You don’t sound as happy as you claim to be and I personally have never met a happy atheist before but perhaps you are the first.

You can spend a lifetime dunking your head in Richard Dawkins pseudo-intellectual fantasizing to assuage your wounds. I know it makes you feel better and its easier than sticking your head in the gemara and actually humbling yourself. I know it allows you free access to the darkest parts of your personality and desires that the Torah would curtail. Your probably quite knowledgeable about all the depravity on the web.

I know all your “arguments” sound very intelligent until you actually open your eyes to the world around you and think.

At the end of the day once you leave your anger and pain at your family and whomever else wronged you in the past and then simply close your eyes for 20 seconds and think about your BRAIN, Richard Dawkins will then appear to be the dumbest man in the universe and your precious neshama will long to come home. But it takes guts. It will embarrass you in front of your parents and friends. It won’t be painless. Its your choice.

Until then, I hope this cold mechanical, unfeeling, unloving universe which you think does not show signs of a loving Creator will treat you well. Sounds rather depressing having no point to life and not being any greater than the bacteria growing in my fridge.

As Bob Dylan once aptly put it, “You’ve got to serve somebody, it may be the devil or may be the Lord but you gotta serve somebody…”

What/whom are you serving?

I know you will come back with some witticism about my views. Its OK.

Cool. So I am
1) Angry
2) In pain
3) Arrogant
4) Not sure about my views
5) Not happy
6) Dunkin my head in pseudo-intellectual
7) Fantasizing to assuage my wounds
8) Taking the easy way out
9) Not humble
10) Accessing the darkest parts of my personality
11) Quite knowledgeable about all the depravity
12) Closing my eyes
13) Not thinking

All in the first 3 paragraphs, all because I seem to disagree even after you have so clearly shown me… um… Uh, what? Oh. Nothing of as yet.
How dare me.

Just so that you can bash me without assuming stuff out of thin air, lemme tell you about myself, and then you can just pick, turn the words around, and shoot. I got tested baal peh on 3/4 of shas, got semicha, have a major in evolutionary Biology, am part of a few philosophy groups and poetry societies, donate platelets every month, gave my marrow for transplants a few times, have sacrificed a huge part of my life for other human beings, am a successful composer, writer, and model, was part of 2 major kiruv movements, read almost every book on this subject, and have everything I could’ve ever dreamed of in my life as an aside.

Now go ahead. Shoot.

Oh, and I’ve been working with developmentally disabled kids for the last few years. There. Now I agree to number 9

Wow. You and I would make great chavrusas! What state do you live in?

I have also been though about 3/4 of Shas and am working my way through Kodshim now.

I am also a published writer, musician/composer. Music is my other passion in life. I led a major national yeshiva kiruv program for several years. We probably know each other!!

I have not donated platelets but then again no one has asked me to.

Now my major concern with you is that you probably are not a tinok sh’nishba either according to the Rambam or the Ramban.
That is quite a feat in this generation!

I see the tip of the iceberg and I am worried about you.

I would love to speak with you. How can I contact you?

We would make great chavruses, other than the fact that I think, and there we have very little in common.

You can contact me at m.souldier@gmail.com

Shauly,
I’m duly impressed, honestly.

As to your 4 points.
Argument #1)By seeing the world as it is, in its finite form, you have tacitly agreed that, say, chemical reaction A has no relation to chemical reaction B, C, D et al. You therefore are also saying that there will not be consistent happy statistical flukes over and over and over again so that a highly complex structure will emerge. So while we can live with unknowns we cannot live with blatant contradictions. The only way we can accept a square circle is when we have not clearly defined one of the terms. That is why we cannot accept that things just happened to fall in place.

A quick note on Evolution. the fact that thing evolved from less complex to more complex in the course of billions of years is pretty much proven beyond reasonable doubt. The mechanism to explain that thru random mutation coupled with survival of the fittest, simply has too many unknown variables to make it into a honest scientific or evern philosophicaly viable theory. How many different possibilities are there and what are the chances. I do not see how this is being addressed, or how it is even possible to be addressed.

Argument #3 and 4) The real God-Hypothosis is that the essential reality is not finite. Obviously, infinity is absolutely impossible to explain, for to conceptualize is to define, to give it finitude. We can only see the contradiction and arbitrariness of ‘limit’ and not allow that as the be-all and end-all. Yeah, ‘unlimited’ is not graspable, yet it’s not contradictory.
It is true that Infinity does not have any definition, therefore ‘intelligence’ is a misnomer. Yet there’s only so much we can do when trying to break down finititude while using finite tools. More so when trying to explain it to the non-philosophcally inclined. It is not meant to give God a certain definition. It is only meant to soften the edges of finitude as much as is possible while dealing with conceptual finite tools.
When we experience existence as One, that is when we experience God. Only when we are not hindered by the limitations (pun intended) of definitive concepts, can we experience beyond-finite.

An infinte reality can obviously create, or rather manifest, infinitely complex structures.

So here you have a perfectly rational proposition where the God Hypothesis does accomplish our goal of having a non-contradictory grasp of reality.

Argument #2) Experiencing Oneness with all of creation is what religion is really all about. It is called a mystical experience because it is an experience outside the realm of definitive, conceptual reality. It is what Hillel responded to the proverbial convert; “Be one with all, the rest is commentary”.
Sure there are 10,000 religions out there, and they possibly work well for their adherents. Luckily for us Judaism can work too. So we can be at peace with our essence without the struggle of leaving a pretty geshmak community (warts and all) and family.

Man is not an island we need a community structure for all our endeavors. Deep Philosophical thought is not for the masses at large. It is therefore inevitable that the community at large will grasp the philosphy on a very primitive and anthropmorphic level. Yet is seems that Judaism runs the full gamut from anthropmorphism to Kabbalistic No-thingness, Ayin

1. Shauly,
In truth I’m under the impression that the ‘argument of design’ is the least philosophical arguement for God that’s out there. Its appeal to the masses is what makes it the first line of defense so to speak. Its sense of intuitive logic is what give it its punch.
Yet I agree that the full argument requires some pretty complex philosphical ‘dreidlach’.
The follwing argument [sometimes called the argument of first casue] is much more appealing to me.
Finititude by definition requires a two part system, namely the object in question and some kind of existence/being where this object is precluded. Take the concept of cold, it is only a concept (definitve) when there is also a concept/reality of ‘not-cold’, namely hot.
In order for any finite concept to be, there has to be another concept too. Finite things ‘need’ something outside itself to be, in order for it to have existence. It’s as if that ‘other’ gives it the possiblity to exist.
The absurdity of this model is that while ‘cold is only possible to exist if there’s hot, at the same time, ‘hot’ is only a concept if there is ‘not-hot’, namely cold.
Seeing Reality as finite beings just doesnt add up.
From a different angle; I simply see how definition only gives structure to reality it can classify it etc. it doesn’t really touch the essence of reality. blah blah blah….
I can go on and on talking about things that in the end are way outside my realm of knowledge, regardless of the fact that it seems to me pretty sound. I don’t have the gall to try proving any philosophical notions in an age where we have seen empirical evidence wreak havoc on any philosophical concept it could get its greedy little hands on. I feel that philosophy has lost its a lot of its legitimacy.
All the above is more in the vein of questioning the certainty of finititude.
We can then at least allow ourselves to check out experiences that go beyond limit and self. (whatever that means, huh

Leib, if your grasp of philosophy is as rudimentary as your grasp of the English language or as your ability to form a coherent sentence, it is quite safe to dismiss your arguments without giving them too much thought.

As it stands, try again in Yiddish and we might understand you. Or perhaps just copy and paste from Luzzatto or Bahya ibn Paquda.

>When we experience existence as One, that is when we experience God.

WTF? 1+1 = 365?

Jason,

Haha, you’re cute, and, I might say, not philosophically inclined. Don’t bother giving it too much thought. It might start becoming difficult to come up with one liners again and again.
BTW, I do agree that the grammatical structure is not the greatest. (don’t even get started about the font).

Stuart,

Shaalleh Gedolah Sho’alto Beni,
As mentioned above, the concept of God is NOT about a personality who wants this or that, does this or that. It is about infinity. It’s about realizing that definitive reality is just how our mind has given order and structure to reality, and that in essence reality is infinite.
Now infinity as you surely know does not have any definition. But the closest we can talk about it is to say that it’s oneness.
Here too I agree with you WTF.

You know nothing of my level of aptitude for philosophy. Again, if this form of baseless reasoning is your game, it is you who is infantile. You make me think I used to meet your kind, way back when in yeshiva, you know those who obsess over the word illuy.

And your English is still atrocious.

Teirer Jason,
Haha again. I hope you’re having fun making these very grown up comments (as opposed to my infantile deroshes above).
As to your level of aptitude for philosophy, with all due respect to your amazing talent of ad hominem attacks, I beg to differ.
Ok, I take that back, I’m not so impressed with your cutsie attacks either. Come on give us something better. (coming from a purported philosopher much dertzi).
Due to many reasons I happen to be reasonably confident that I made some very valid and somewhat interesting points. Your total dismissal of my whole drosho, along with your resorting to childish attacks speaks volumes. It is therefore my humble opinion that your level of aptitude for philosophy is lacking.

The above is not to say that I don’t enjoy your almost cute silliness.

All kidding aside guys, is there anyone without an aptitude/attitude problem interested in discussing these issues. It seemed like the Shauly persona would be up to it.

Shauly persona is here. Whassup? Lol. Anyways, lieb, let’s get down to business.

I said:

“1) You must demonstrate that only design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.”

You countered (ok, I DO agree with jason, amidst a bunch of babble):

“there will not be consistent happy statistical flukes over and over and over again so that a highly complex structure will emerge.”

My response to ya:

Ever saw how at the beach, smaller pebbles are higher and farther into the beach than the heavy bigger ones? Lots of times there are clearly defined “layers”. Now some ancients might have contributed it to some higher being who likes order, but we can understand that its simple waves versus gravity, pulling down the heavier ones first.
-order doesn’t NEED a designer.

NOW, here is the mistake theists make. Its NOT statistical flukes over and again. Its an order WITHIN an order. Its not a wind blowing through a junkyard to create a 747. Its not a human eye being created with one mutation. Anyone suggesting that, is simply ignorant to how evolution works. It will take me a few paragraphs to explain how it does work though, and I don’t wanna scribble up the wall here. So research it. Read dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker”.

Lemme attempt to do it in a short version for the sake of keeping the argument up.
If you try to figure out a banks’ lock number; say the answer really is “1,2,3,4,5”; and every time you do SOMETHING right, like put a 3 after a 2, or put in 4 as the fourth number, it indicates as such. Say it gives a little ring, telling u that its now better, closer, to the right answer. It’ll be easy as pie to figure it out.
If you start out with the wright brothers plane, and every time an engineer adds a part that makes it fly better, cost less gas, or whatever it is that is “better” in this particular environment, it will stay in ‘plane circulation’, they will use it from now on.

Its not a wind blowing through a junkyard. Its a motorcycle in a world where airplanes are needed. Its added wheels and chairs till it was a car, added wings so it can jump, a cesna tail, then cut in half and elongated.. Its why we don’t look like 747’s on the inside, rather like banged up and fixed, like patched up spare parts, of our ancestors.

Its why we have upside-down and turned around retinas, the appendix (reminisce of a cecum), cocyx (tail bone), male nipples, vertebrae built for quadrupeds, etc..

A few light sensitive nerves at the front of the head, could mean life or death in the jungle for someone millions of years ago. Every mutation for the better meant a bigger percentage of life, health, and passing on of that gene. But natural selection only works upon the step established last. Order upon order.

The chances against a full eye happening from one mutation, a different type of species being born from 2 normal parents, or that you actually read up on how evolution works, is huge. The chances against a pinhole eye developing more complex nerves that can see shadow and therefore escape a predator quicker, aint.

There. I graffiti’ed the wall. If they arrest me ill say you made me do it.

——
As you explain in your rebuttal (wo! Waaaay too of a strong word there.. Lol) of argument #3 and #4, your definition of “God” is anyhow “infinity”. Which is cool.
I mean, I can call “gravity”, “the devil” or “clouds”, “angels”, but as long as you don’t illusion yourself into thinking that there is a superman up there who wants stuff from you, and that, that might explain anything contradictory to the logic in argument #3 and #4, go right ahead.

——-
Again your “rebuttal” of argument #2 with deep seated emotions like “Experiencing Oneness with all of creation is what religion is really all about” And ” Judaism runs the full gamut from anthropmorphism to Kabbalistic No-thingness”, in no way refutes, or as far as I can see, even deals with the same subject, as argument #2.

Heiliger Shauly Persona,

Are you perchance Jasons alter ego?

I’d expect serious discussion without silly attacks. As mentioned to Jason, I like his silliness but from someone with your credentials I’d expect more.

I’d therefore respectfully ask that we strictly stick to the issues and not refer to Jason in order to get me down a notch or two.

I’d rather not get bogged down with who speaks better english etc. etc. ad nauseam.

I will listen to what you say carefully, almost be’bchinas hikdeemu direy Bais Shamai Le’divreyhem. And I’d expect someone with your resume to try doing the same.

stay tuned…

Nopes, but I am his evil twin brother.

And same goes for your argument of First Cause. Will deal with it when this debate is over.

The simple utilitarian function my words ought to perform is to make you understand that because of your choice of words you are exceedingly difficult to understand, not because of the subject matter at hand, but because of your choice of words.

Are you also *deliberately* vague? Is this that cheap illuy tactic we both learnt to practice at Yeshiva? You say things like “But the closest we can talk about it is to say that it’s oneness.” what on earth is that supposed to mean? Perhaps you understand what it is you are trying to say but you are not actually saying it.

Then you add “Here too I agree with you WTF.” Are you conceding the argument saying that you do not understand your own waffle, if so who are you to peddle your wares. Is this some argument you have read by an authoritative figure we must all respect? (Or must I use the term “argument from authority” for my point to be vaild?)

Or are you saying it is “oneness” and “oneness” is WTF?

And BTW on your point regarding evolution (as I understood it given your vagueness), given that speciation as a result of natural selection is seen to occur today, (e.g. the Malaysian gecko) there is no reason to believe that it did not occur in the past, in fact predation and the struggle for life means that it HAS to occur, for it not to, would be quite astonishing.

It so happens to be a plausible explainable for life as we know it once a first life form existed, and brother Occam (as do Chazal with “Tofasto Meiyut”) dictates that we need not look for any other explanation for that alone.

Sooo let’s get down to business;

Your first argument is “You must demonstrate that only design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid”

I agree that there can be orderly systems through some blind forces, i.e. without any intelligent designer involved. Evolution is a good example, given enough time and material along with random mutation, fight for survival where only the fittest survive, it is practically inevitable that a world just like ours will emerge. I’ll explain later my beef with evolution.

So yes, I agree that in the strict sense you don’t need a designer for every little bit of order found in the universe.

Yet I don’t understand how you are using it to simply invalidate the argument of design. You are NOT saying that any level of design even with enormous amounts of complex components can simply happen with any reason. You yourself are obviously resorting to evolution to explain the origin of (species) complex design.

Yet, you might be saying that in the end who’s to say that we can’t have innumerable stupendous happy accidents? Disprove it to me logically, who cares if it doesn’t appeal to your ‘common sense’, you might be arguing.

Now, I’m sure you’re aware that the only logical way to disprove anything is to point out the contradictory nature of the statement in question. I can’t just say, heck come on it doesn’t make sense blah blah blah..
Take for example the Aristotelian viewpoint that the world as we see it now, always was. In that case one might still be tempted to ask ‘why and how all this complexity’. But that argument will be wrong, because there has to be a contradiction in order to disprove something or even to ask why. And the simple answer would be “why not”.(This viewpoint, as most of his falsifiable theories, ended up being a nice armchair philosophical hypothesis disproven by the empirical evidence of geological strata)
It was therefore necessary for me to point out that consistent statistical flukes are contradictory to the very essence of your understanding of reality (by ‘your understanding’ I mean a reality without the ‘babble’ that it’s essentially infinite, i.e. having no finitude, no definite characteristics.)
A universe comprised of strict definitive entities, will by those very strictures have precise rigid guidelines of how and when a composite structure is to emerge. A will not happen if B is not here, B wont be here if C, D, and E didn’t transpire in the previous set of circumstances (I call ‘time’ a set of circumstances).
You therefore cannot just shrug your shoulder at the statistical improbabilities.

Please note, I did not argue against evolution here. I’m arguing against your virtual shrug of shoulder to the problem of how to explain complex systems.

As an aside, I will repeat that if this Shauly persona along with the credentials associated with it, are real, it is an honor for me to have this discussion. Let’s keep it on the up and up. Who knows you might make me see the light.

Awaiting your response,
Leib

Evolution, that oh so tired subject;

Yeah sometimes (agreed rarely) i’m a sucker for authority, Argument of Authority if you will. I therefore have tried long and hard to convince myself in the truth of the mechanism of Evolution.
Yet I simply don’t get it. I would appreciate your helping me out with my questions here.

No I did not read all the writings of Richard Dawkins militant high priest of the religion of evolution. I did read some of his books along with many many others like Danial Denetts ‘Darwins Dangerous Idea. etc. (I remember around 10 years ago Commentary had some very good articles pro and con from some very big names, made for a very interesting read along with some serious sleep deprivation
As mentioned in one of my previous comments, I do not put a lot into the argument of design simply because I don’t believe too much in hypothesizing and coming to conclusions on such far out issues. (many if not most philosophical theories that were falsifiable, were falsified,) I will later try to explain why, if so, I’m still here to discuss Infinity.

My question is very simple. Give me the data please. I don’t want wishful thinking, NOR argument from authority, got enough of that where i’m coming from.

What are the steps/mutations necessary to achieve a fully functioning human body as we have it today.

What is the ratio of mutation, and how many of those will hinder rather than benefit the organism.
The more advanced the system is the smaller the ratio of beneficial mutations.

To your point of “order within order” I would also ask; how many components within a complex structure are in itself already beneficial towards the end result of that very same complex mechanism? Think Michael Behe’s mousetrap, where many single elements in this very rudimentary composite mechanism will not in any way be beneficial to catching mice. You will then have to assume (read, think wishfully) some other way these individual components benefit the object, not related to the end product.

All I need are hard data where we know the actual numbers and we then simply plug it in to our equation and we will see if given these variables within these time constraints it is statistically probable or even reasonably possible to achieve the particular complex structure in question.

Maybe there is some numbers out there? By reading debates between the best of them it seemed that this was a forgone conclusion there are no numbers to talk about.

No numbers on the ratio of mutation, no numbers on the ratio of beneficial mutations. No factual data on how each step benefited the organism (sometimes being weak can be an evolutionary benefit ala the supposed evolutionary benefit of altruism, heck, everything goes, why hold back from some nice wishful thinking.) no data of how we all fit the above in the very precise timelines we are restricted to.

Obviously the time restrictions is the killer here. Not to mention the natural catastrophes that pushed us back sometimes to square one. Or the Cambrian Explosion that require us to restrict our timeline further with punctuated eqilibrium

But as mentioned I don’t put too much in this question one way or anther so I will admit I didn’t study the issue for quite some time. I will also admit the obvious, I’m not a scientist I just read both sides of the debate as written by presumably the top guys in field.

In sum, don’t give me silly examples where white moths (or black) survived, or that there will be a certain strain of bacteria that will be immune to penicillin. Sure if someone will kill all jews the christian population will take over is this all evolution’s got?

no testimonials, give me falsifiable reproducible data please.

>No numbers on the ratio of mutation,

Of course there are. It is quite the bane for thousands of students in universities who study observable evolution in vitro for asexually reproducing bacteria. Pick up a biology text book if you please.

>The more advanced the system is the smaller the ratio of beneficial mutations.

Um no, not at all, it depends what modification in phenotype the mutated loci produces if any. A single DNA point mutation is normally not detrimental given the way codons are transcribed into protein, whereas deleterious mutations are often very serious.

Your assumption that every trait is a binary detriment/benefit is incorrect and that is why genotypes go extinct.

Plus you have the sickle cell anaemia genotype a recessive allele, which is beneficial to allele carriers where malaria is prevalent. (Surprise surprise, it is prevalent in the subtropics)

Check this out as well http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00cqcl0 there is nothing remotely silly about white moths.

You claim statistical improbability, yet you have no idea how many universes there are.

The DNA evidence for evolution is overwhelming and irrefutable, plus it is new. As is transcribed Endogenous retroviruses. Darwin probably didn’t even know of Mendelian Genetics.

R’ Jason Shli’ta,

Whoa, what with all the passion, the venom, the certainty, the talking down?
Still got that Kiruv clown ‘we know it all’ mentality? Or is that your alterego/evil brother who did kiruv?

The simple utilitarian function, huh? Four words ‘please explain yourself better’ is all it would’ve taken.

Oofer Ani Tachas Kapos Raglecho, Adoni Ha’King, Didn’t mean in any way to offend you by joining this discussion. A hundred thousand pardons honorable Sir, for ruffling your feathers somehow.

Do you honestly think that discussing infinity is simple and easy to explain? Well, you’ve got yourself another think coming.

If you do not know much about infinity, how and why its closest approximation may be calling it ‘oneness’, go ahead and ask. Why all the negative insinuations?

Jason,

Are you saying that there are precise or even remotely approximate numbers on what the ratio of mutations were in the course of last billion years or so?
Sure we know now the rate of mutation in our current state of things, infinitesimally small by the way. I wouldn’t be so rash and argue against Evolution based on today’s low rate. I’d understand that this foolproof system is probably a much later development.

As to your second point, same as above. Do not prove anything when we are at the level of sophistication where it has given itself the option of mutation and YET being able to function flawlessly (possibly thru enough redundancy or whatever).

As I said, we need logic here not testimonials.

And then the ultimate wild card, Multiple Universe Theory. I’m sure you know that with multiple universe theory we don’t need any theory of evolution. We simply happen to be the universe within the infinite number of universes that happens to have our particular set-up.

Jason or whoever,

I gotta say I’m changing my opinion about you. I respect knowledge and you got quite a bit of it.

I raise the white flag and I want to stop bickering and focus on the discussing.
All’s I’m saying is…. yeah, let’s give peace a chance

Jason or whoever,

I gotta say I’m changing my opinion about you. I respect knowledge and you got quite a bit of it.

I raise the white flag, I want to stop the bickering and focus on the discussing.
All’s I’m saying is…. yeah, let’s give peace a chance

Jason,

Why is there nothing remotely silly about the Peppered Moth story?

I asked before and ask again, If Hitler kills all jews in a region is it astounding that the next generation will be an all non-jewish population?

White Moths being subject to predation were weeded out from the population. A black male and female will inevitably produce black offsprings. So it is inevitable with the white moths being killed that the black will take over.

How is it not silly? What was proven here? that when whites are killed and blacks are not killed the blacks will live on and the whites won’t. WOW! how insightful.

Given enough predation it could happen in one day. Oops all white moths are gone and black will only produce black ones.

Besides the many unknowns i have with the gecko speciation story, I woulda loved that starry eyed scientist who discovered a cave adapted gecko to give me the criteria for cave adaptation prior to him seeing it. Changing the rules in middle of a game is called cheating, in the non-scientific world.

The basic theory of evolution and my basic questions on that theory are simple. It should be a simple mathematical equation.
All we need is data.

What was the mutation rate,
What is the rate of beneficial mutation,
How many individual steps of mutations, beneficial ones in their own right, are needed in order to achieve the complexity of an eye. (if i remember correctly it evolved 4 times independently)
Do we even have an hypothesis how this happened, step by infinitesimally small step, and how each step was beneficial so that it took over the population?
The time frame this all should take?

We should also take into account the losses we can incur even after we achieve a certain complex beneficial trait. For there is a reasonable probability that this complex beneficial trait has used some of the resources from the organism. and is therefore wiped out when that specific (lost) resource is vitally needed at that point in time, to the everlasting loss of this benefit to posterity.
Also, todays benefit may be tomorrows detriment so much so that it is possible that a majority of benefits we so painstaking acquired will be the cause of our downfall. What are the statistics on the fickleness of a “benefit”. Would the fickleness of the ‘benefit’ cause to statistically quit itself out? A ‘cave’ gecko that becomes a bit more aggressive(a presumed benefit) and wipes most of its less aggressive brethren, walks out of the cave due to its aggressive nature and then gets exposed to a different predator and gets promptly wiped out.
The variables are endless. We need data, we need mathematicians and we need computer models where to crunch these astronomical numbers.

You write “The DNA evidence for evolution is overwhelming and irrefutable,” powerful statement. Care to give me some data besides just giving a very reassuring powerful statement? I’d also like to know if you mean evolution with new complex beneficial structures? .
You write “plus it is new”. Ok then I’ll wait patiently until there are some answers. Until then it can remain a hunch at best.

@lieb, ever felt like you wanna hit yourself in the head for thinking you are talking to someone who is listening, only to find out it was a huge waste of energy? Exactly what I feel like.
I explained to you, after precautionary statements of “READ THE DAMN BOOK PLEASE”, that evolution is not a “happy flux again and again” and that if you do think that, well you simply don’t understand how evolution works. You got serious lapses of information my friend, and while I mistakingly assumed that a little run down might have you understand anything, I now know otherwise. I’m sorry for trying.

After my explanation, all u have to say is:
“Yet, you might be saying that in the end who’s to say that we can’t have innumerable stupendous happy accidents?”?? That’s exactly what I was trying to explain! Did you not read what I wrote? God I feel like an idiot for trying.

You ask:
“What are the steps/mutations necessary to achieve a fully functioning human body as we have it today.

What is the ratio of mutation, and how many of those will hinder rather than benefit the organism.”

And you exclaim:
“I don’t put too much in this question one way or anther so I will admit I didn’t study the issue for quite some time.”

I propose:
Read up. I personally suggest Dawkins. ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ and ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. Easiest reads on the subject. They will explain to you HOW evolution works. You might as well been asking how electric impulses in the nervous system is possible. Read the text that deals with it. It will have your answers.

>A black male and female will inevitably produce black offsprings. So it is inevitable with the white moths being killed that the black will take over.

Indeed that is all evolution is given time. Re the numbers what Shauly says. They are there. I have to say, you seem to be moving the goal posts regarding evolution all the time.

Don’t ignore heredity in DNA. It is irrefutable as evidence.

Shauli Persona, Hayokor Ve’Hachoviv,

Your first point (way back when you were still acting reasonable) seemed to me that it was not about evolution. It seemed to be a general philosophical notion that design does not necessarily need a designer it can happen blindly. (there are some people out there who claim such). I therefore explored all the different meanings of that statement. (practicing what I preach “Hikdeemu Divrey Bais Shamai Le’Diverehem).

It seems now from your writing that it was very pointedly about evolution. (why not then call the baby by its name?). In my follow-up posts I have explained at length my questions on evolution. I have also made clear that while not a scientist, I have read up extensively on Evolution. Sure, I also wrote that I didn’t make Chazorah on all these books, which allowed you to take it out of context as if I admitted that I didn’t read up on the issue.

Regardless of what I claim or don’t claim, it should be abundantly clear from my writings here that I have a very good grasp of the subject matter, on a layman’s level, that is.

While it is very possible that there are good answers to all my questions, they are without a doubt reasonable ones. They do not deserve the silly unreasonable attacks you guys are spouting forth. On a positive note I would have to say that the Shauly persona’s attacks are pretty sophisticated in the way it’s presented. I like your style, your humor, how you subtly throw an attack out of left field. When the rules of the game allow it, I myself am not bad at that either. Be that as it may, it is pretty obvious that you are not in any way interested in an intelligent honest discussion. That’s fine too.

As an aside; Your alterego/evil brother? Jason, writes in a way that would seem he studied the subject matter as a scientist/biologist. It would have therefore been even more exciting if this discussion would be reasonable and intellectually honest.
To be sure, I have my doubts on Jason’s scientific credentials (as I have on your long laundry list of credentials you have so graciously shared with us in the past ). There are many high sounding words in his writings that seem totally out of place. Remember, he did say something about how he would resort to that kind of trick in Yeshivah. I wouldn’t suspect it from any reasonable interlocutor, but heck, you guys are way past reasonable here.

I was, and still am, totally up for an honest intelligent discussion on the issues at hand. But if your responses till now are of any indication on your future responses, it seems like an intelligent discussion is not in the offing by a long shot.

I still have a point or three to make here……….soon enough.

Jason,

You write “the numbers that Shauly said” Where did Shauly say it. You seem to be confusing your personas here. Jason said it not Shauly.

So when are we getting the Mitch persona back in the fray?

Straw man anyone?

Your “reasonable discussion” ended up being nothing but a dribble of endless words with no content to discredit any of my points. Feels like talking to a talking wall. There. More accurate.

Here is the deal, I didn’t feel, even once, that you provided a clear counter argument to any of my points; the questions you DID put on the table, about subject we DID NOT discuss here before hand, are all pretty first grade level questions that you don’t even sit in a classroom or read a book for, you can research it for yourself online.
You are asking me to explain and produce evidence that the world is round, and then angry why I don’t seem bothered to write an extensive article or book about it. If you want a crash course on the mechanics of evolution, go to one. If you would like an honest debate about Creatism vs. Evolution on a comment thread of an online journal, you would just counter with simple, understandable points instead of an endless thesis about your view of infinity. Its not jason or mine sharp wit that hampers this debate. Its your refusal to debate instead of argue.

Exhibit A
Shauly on Shauly, (from his previous comment in this thread)

“I got tested baal peh on 3/4 of shas,

got semicha,

have a major in evolutionary Biology,

am part of a few philosophy groups

and poetry societies,

donate platelets every month,

gave my marrow for transplants a few times,

have sacrificed a huge part of my life for other human beings,

am a successful composer,

writer,

and model,

was part of 2 major kiruv movements,

read almost every book on this subject,

and have everything I could’ve ever dreamed of in my life as an aside.

Oh, and I’ve been working with developmentally disabled kids for the last few years. ”

I rest my case.

My scientific credentials are not relevant here. What has pathetically become relevant is the fact that I am not Shauly. You whimsically assume that anything is anything.

If you wish to confirm this, please email the editor of this website and he will confirm that we live on different continents.

Shauly has given you a good reading list, and I am sure those books do deal with statistical probability even if I have not read them.

>There are many high sounding words in his writings that seem totally out of place.

You could have googled the words I use but instead once again you whimsically play by ear without any need for substantiation.

Phenotype: is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology (wiki)

Locus: (plural loci) is the specific location of a gene or DNA sequence on a chromosome. (wiki)

DNA point mutation is when one single nucleotide is incorrectly inserted into the chromosome by DNA polymerase in the place of another. This is normally not too harmful since there are 64 (4³) codons and only 20 (or 21, whatever I am not going to explain this here) amino acids which make up proteins in ribosomal translation, and because of introns and DNA splicing.

Deleterious Mutations is when a nucleotide is missing, you know those ATCG thingys are missing. Now because codons code for amino acids, eg take a strand which reads GCAA, GCA codes for for Alanine, now you have CAA that codes for Glutamine. Sometimes the protein that arises from such a change is functional and sometimes not.

Some organisms depend on high levels of incorrect DNA/RNA transcription for genetic variety, and they depend on it. Stats on mutation thus also vary from species to species.

A model, Shauly?

Lieb, I should hire you for my PR! You are doing a great job with speeches anyhow. Thanx for the better copy of my resume.

Jason, yea, since I took time off from college to start up my side job and am only doing some chemistry classes, I took up modeling/acting school. Barbyzon. School katy perry graduated from. Was extremely successful thank god, allah, jesus, buddah, jade, all the spirits, and of course zechis uves. Gonna start a spin off bar tending course there now too. Wanted to do that once in my life.

Shauly,
You’re doing extremely well on your own (‘extreme’ being the operative word). Although if you ask me I’d add ‘fertile imagination’ to your list. On second thought, it’s there already.

So we’re dealing with a guy who got tested on 3/4 shas baal peh. [Which by the way I do not know nor have I heard of anyone who ever did that. Kudos for you audacity on doing (or writing) something like that.]

Moreinu Hagaon, I’m trying to find the Gemarah that says “Whoever has issues should go to a doctor to check himself out”, You wouldn’t know anything about that would you?

Well I got the “moriynee” title in tzans’er yeshivah in natanya. Guess I doped the rosha yeshivahs and magida shirim. And cheskal roth on signing that I tested on 3 chalukim. Doped em all. Whatever dude. I don’t give a fuck about what anyone thinks about me anyways. I put up that list cause he was taking cheap shots, so I thought I’d make it interesting.

But it’s all true right?

Nopes. I’m a fictional character of an 80’s comics, about an alien in area 51, and was named shauly because of its similarity to the sound “showoff” which that character always was.

So you’re here now, not giving blood platlets or any other form of amazing altrusim. Simply basking in the glory of ‘Shauly’ the guy who “as an aside” has “everything he could’ve ever dreamt for”

So Back to the Gemarah then.
Whoever has issues should go check himself out. wouldn’t know anything about that huh?

Hmmm…. doesn’t ring a bell.. figures.

Don’t brood Shauly, that beautiful list of yours, along with your scholarship stands as strong as before, no harm no foul.

If R’ Chezkel Roth says so then I’m sure you weren’t one of those Jason type Illuyim where you just smooth talked your way thru.

We should also bear in mind that with all your poetry societies, philosophy groups, platelet donations, and your ever so obvious empathy with other human beings, you might not have time to make Chazorah.

Ok so I looked it up myself, let me share it here with you. Call it extra credit above and beyond the 3/4 baal peh.

Shout out to the Illuy, come join us, you can both lend some of your shaarp wit. It’s Talmud after all.

So the Gemara is in Baba Kama, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Harayah Lomoh Li Kro Sevoro Hu, D’Koev Leih Ke’evo Ozul Le’Beih Asiah.

The Gemara says (in an abstract sense) That we don’t need a Posuk on Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Harayah, because it is self evident that whoever wants to assert a position on someone else he is required to bring proof to his position. Trying to use other tactics, juvenile or otherwise will simply not do.
In order to prove this point the Gemara states the following De’koev Leih Ke’evah Ozul Le’Beih Asyah; whoever has issues should/would go to a doctor to check himself out.

Now before we go into the logic of this gemara let’s first talk about the simple implications of the text. Koidem Vos Un Dernoch Farvos. Or, your Tzanz education doesn’t really lend itself to Farvos at all. Clears up some stuff for me here.

So Shauly, here’s how I see this Gemara. The same logic that would urge a man with obvious issues to check himself out, is also valid in a case where a person wants to assert a position vis-a-vis someone else.

From this Gemara we learn that a person who goes for help when he has, say, serious signs of grandiosity disorder, would also find it reasonable to use proof as a method of persuasion, rather than resorting to an uncivilized Kol D’alum Gvar approach.

What says we apply it in the other direction as well. Someone who does not use proof when asserting a position but rather chooses coercion tactics, would also be the same guy who wouldn’t go to the doctor however obvious and serious his issues might be.

Any thoughts Jason? My atrocious English getting to you again, huh?

Jason the wiki guy or as we were want to call the Taznz guy Chamor Noseh Seforim, would want me to look it up in wiki. Hey I’m out to please.
Wikipedia
GRANDIOSITY
It refers to AN UNREALISTIC SENSE OF SUPERIORITY, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have in common with oneself AND THAT ONE CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY A FEW VERY SPECIAL PEOPLE.

Facts are sometimes stranger than fiction.
Who woulda thunk

Shauly,

I am sorry for jumping in on this topic this late in the game. I was just wondering do you by chance happen to be gay?

Leib you conveniently did not respond to my last comment.

I have tried to present you with some facts, with the molecular basis for mutation and how that works on a simple level. You simply ignore the facts when they do not suit you.

You also said that in my words there were many “that seem totally out of place” implying that you know a thing or two about those words, when you clearly do not. I call intellectual fraud. Whilst I have shown that I can substantiate my words, you have shown that you can not. My initial illuy remark looks all the more pertinent now.

In fact it seems you are not even remotely interested in those words, since you have never addressed anything related to them. You are just as fictitious as brother Shauly is here.

> I was, and still am, totally up for an honest intelligent discussion on the issues at hand.

You clearly are not. So we will leave it at that, since I am. Bye.

Omg I feel like that person lost at sea. “Words words words, and not a drop to drink”. Lieb you have amazed even me with how long one can talk without saying anything. I just hope that anyone with a drop of intelligence reading this discussion doesn’t get derailed from the soup of words you cooked up, and sees the actual sane points the literate people here propounded.

Sam, not so far. Why? You looking for a mikvah buddy?

I pretty much hate myself for not listening to my intuition that lieb is one of those word soup cooks and argument surfers, and for starting to actually counter. You live and you learn.. I’m out.

Hell no! I thought it would blend in very nicely with your imprresive resume.

Gay model, writer, poet etc.

Lets explore Shauly’s list. As Shauly on Shauly, (from his previous comment in this thread)

“I got tested baal peh on 3/4 of shas,
-Highly unlikely. Baal Peh in this generation. You must be dreaming.

got semicha,
-For sure not possible if busy learning Shas baal peh. How could you have time for such a serious halacha seder. Probably did some Aish jokey 2 year program at best.

have a major in evolutionary Biology,
-Possibly. Can there be a more boring college course??

am part of a few philosophy groups
-I can believe that.
and poetry societies,
-Why not, poetry is great fun and he is a good writer. I bet he is a decent rapper as well.

donate platelets every month,
-Who would lie about that?

gave my marrow for transplants a few times,
A few times…hmmm… are you still alive?

have sacrificed a huge part of my life for other human beings,
-That’s great. Chesed is grand!

am a successful composer,
-Composer of what? Death metal songs?
writer,

and model,
-OK now we are really stretching things.
Shas baal peh and modeling. That is even weirder than a Chasidic Reggae hip hop star turned Kenneth Cole model. Ah what a generation!

was part of 2 major kiruv movements,
Organized kiruv (ie fundraising) can make anyone crazy so I guess that one is believable

read almost every book on this subject,
-Did you skip Chovos Halevovos?

and have everything I could’ve ever dreamed of in my life as an aside.
-If life is a random act of mutation what exactly could you really want. You did not wind up a protozoa. You can read and write. You got a great deal.

Oh, and I’ve been working with developmentally disabled kids for the last few years. ”
-I think we are all developmentally disabled being on this website.

Emes, if I ever develop a taste for giving a fuck about how others perceive me and if I fit in someone’s personal normal box, imma use your critic for a biography. Meanwhile, I’m still hopelessly shitless.

Dearest Shauly/Jason Model/Illuy Tzanser/Scientist,

Now I’m hurt. I finally start playing by your rules, throwing nasty shots, attacking personally, talking about anything but the issue at hand, and all I get for that is someone limping out with tail neatly tucked between legs, (oops, not yet, he said) along with some hartziga farewell wishes, No Fair, boo hoo.

Then again, Jason does have a point, right from the get go in his very first comment he was all about intellectual respectful discussion. Sure, calling out my “atrocious English”, “disability to form a coherent sentence” “rudimentary grasp of philosophy” etc. etc. was simply our model/altruistic alter-ego helping me out.
Mr. Iluy I feel your pain. Can’t leave you wallowing in self-pity.

So let’s give our duo or trio (the straw guy, remember?) a heartfelt (bronx) cheer.
Go Tzanzer Illuyim Go, Go get a life Go,

aaaaahhhhhhh

OY VEY!! Such language coming from such a highly developed random mutation who happens to write poetry. I would expect more from such a highly developed late stage evolved species.

CAS=Avodah Zorah. An oldie but a goodie.

Starting to think this Shauly guy is just an angry teenager who is a bit repressed…(keeping this in Loshon Nekiah).

I wish him lots of love and affection.

Emes,
Or to take it a step further, “Lo Ovdu Yisroel Avodah Zorah Eloh Le’Hatir Lohem Arayas.

Jokes aside, these kids do seem to have talent and a decent level of knowledge. Heck, it may even be true that Jason or Shauly took college courses on this subject. It’s all the more upsetting that they are not yet capable of discussing an issue intelligently and objectively.

Actually, there’s a very strong chance that in real life they/him are decent nice people. The anonymity of the blog world sometimes gets the better of us. We tend to dehumanize our counterparts, which in turn makes them dehumanize us, which in turn makes for a strange nasty blog world.

Also realize, Charedim who start using their own mind, and don’t tow the party line, get a lot of hate from their community and peers. I almost don’t blame them. It takes a lot of willpower to do what they’re doing, and that is admirable.

Their wonderful nature of trying to acquire objective intelligence, which is obvious by their high level of intelligence, way overrides their being juvenile in the blogosphere. And NO this is not me trying to be sarcastic, patronizing, conciliatory, or whatever. I’m just sharing with you my true feelings on the matter.

In the end I must honestly say that with all they’re attacks against me, I still respect them for what they are, (at least, what I think they are).
I have to admit that I do NOT like playing nasty in the blogosphere. Discussing the issues with serious open minds can be fun, challenging, and sometimes even blow your mind.
Peace and Love,
Leib

As a late witness to this discussion, I can confirm that despite Leibs assertion Jason uses the correct genetics terms where they belong.
You clearly know your stuff, kudos Jason.

Leib, it is quite safe to say that Jason is NOT Saul. That is pretty clear.

Martin, in 2 minutes u’ll be accused of being me and jason, too.. Just precaution’ing ya.

Lieb, wow. I respect your decency, your ability to step back for a second, I bow in admiration to at least you personality! And if any of ya wants to get to know me, email me to the address I’ve written above to mitch.

Emes, if ya choose to email me too, ill send ya some of my poetry, and show ya, that fuck, shit, piss, or hairy covered tits, are all expressions that have no replacement any other way. All words are needed and appreciated for what they are when u r a writer.

As the Great Bard would have it, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

I don’t give a hoot if jason/shauly are two complete and separate individuals, one single individual, or siamese twins.
If Shauly and Jason are one, it would only raise your esteem in my eyes, intelligence plus talent. You guys’ hang up on it is the only reason “oneness” would have a negative connotation, [with the exception of my original subject matter, that is]. (Am I being too abstruse again? I’m certainly not in the mood of being beaten up to within an inch of my life. Let me therefore explain; In discussions on infinity, Oneness does imply negation.)

There were seemingly two guys ganging up on me, I wasn’t in the mood of creating a man in my image. So in order to counter your numbers advantage, I, as I am want to do, pushed for Oneness.

It’s nice to see that you have so strong a handle on the subject matter that, in your opinion, all it should take to convince me, is simply your saying so with emphatic conviction and some capped words. Reminds me a bit of Jason’s powerful statements like “dna evolution is irrefutable”.
This handle on the issue can possibly be attributed to both your and Jason’s amazing industriousness, as is obvious by the very unique timing that both you and Jason write posts, precisely at 5:21am, today and yesterday respectively. Ben Franklin had it right, Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.

Couldn’t resist that little barb, can you blame me? Jason still didn’t even acknowledge how I am meting out much less atrocities to the King’s English than he has so emphatically and relentlessly stated.

Let me say it straight here;
However much I do respect all of you guys’ knowledge and talent, which is an awful lot, (collectively AND individually :-)) along with my strong conviction that this is not your real-life personalities I still find your horrible bullying tactics in the blogosphere, despicable.

It didn’t and doesn’t really affect me, but it very well could have knocked the wind out of someone trying to see things outside the box. It also gives the thinking person a bad name. We’ve got enough of that to go around for some time, don’t you think?
Now I’m in for it, am I actually preaching here? Nah, I’m just telling it without viciousness.

But then again, the pain and hate you guys must be getting at the hands of the Jihadists can make anyone pounce at someone trying yet again to force feed some points irrationally, Which I did NOT, and have NO intention of doing. (there, emphatic statement with caps)

Incidentally, That is what I found so bizarre in the Mitch dialogue, Shauley’s being so uncharacteristically decent to someone who clearly was not using rational logic to prove his point and was actually doing some ad hominem attacks on Shauly. Hence my straw man hypothesis.

Hey guys, Pesach is around the corner for some of us, see ya when I see ya.

You still aint getting it. Time-zones anyone (hint hint)?

My comments were barbed, true. But philosophy does have to be worded perfectly, you probably realise that now.

But I did add substance to this discussion. You have not addressed my points at all.

I have already substantiated my words yet you still merely wave them away. That is years of toil in university study halls rendered silly by a slight of hand of yours Leib.

You wouldn’t do that if you were really interested in substance.
Why would I bother explaining how strong a proof DNA is for evolution? You won’t even read it, you will simply say I am using big words and out of place ones.

Have a lovely Yomtov.

Even though some of this forum (shauly’s language issue-You seem to have gone from 3/4 of Shas to a fan of gangster rap.) has gotten a bit juvenile. Nonetheless I think it has been interesting and worthwhile. Everyone here seems reasonably intelligent. I personally think that Mitch in his simplicity has checkmated all of his opponents but then again I am still a card carrying member of the helige Yidden. Sometimes less is more.

I think it would be a blast if we all got together on Chol HaMoed or some other day to watch the documentary on Evolution by Ben Stein “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”.

Thoughts?

Dear Jason

Let me point out got me suspicious that you are just using highbrow words. Let me preface this by saying what I have said over and over again, and what is probably pretty obvious; I am not a scientist.

I wrote that the more complex a system is, which means it has more components to it, it has a bigger chance to have detrimental effects when a mutation occurs. I was obviously talking about evolution in the making, i.e. a system that has just say two parts to it versus a system that has 50.

My point was not in any way a main argument in my gripes on evolution it was just pointing out how mutations should become exponentially more harmful as the complexity rises. A really inconsequential point. But a point nevertheless.

You responded;

“Um no, not at all, it depends what modification in phenotype the mutated loci produces if any.”

i.e. sometimes mutations are totally irrelevant i.e. they don’t affect the function of the allele

“A single DNA point mutation is normally not detrimental given the way codons are transcribed into protein,”

i.e. you are giving an example of a mutation type that doesn’t affect the functionality. In layman’s terms think of the frame of a car being dented, it’s a mutation but not in functionality. [although we can say that an ugly car has less chance for survival, but you get my point])

“Whereas deleterious mutations are often very serious.”
i.e. mutations that have a negative effect on functionality are often very serious.

Taking away the scientific jargon, it seemed to me that your response was;

When mutations don’t effect the functionality it’s not a problem, (duh) but when they affect it negatively it can be serious.

In sum, I write that a the more complex a system is, the more chances are that when it is tampered with, it will lose one of its functions. And your answer is what exactly? It didn’t seem to me that it even addressed my point.

What really got me worried was, that this paragraph even without my concern of not addressing my point, really didn’t flow well, and i’m not talking about grammar, or vocabulary here. I’m talking about the simple logic of this sentence.

“When mutations don’t affect the functionality it’s not a problem” so far so good. Now what would logically belong here is “but when it does affect the functionality it could be a problem”. What you wrote here instead is, “but when it does cause a problem (deleterious) it can be a serious problem”.
Who’s talking about the gravity of the problem? you are taking that sometimes it’s not a problem at all, and should’ve finished that “other times it could be a problem”.

It could well be that the above is a total non-issue. I’m just explaining to you what got me thinking.

Now please remember that in a reasonable conversation I would totally not think about it. But when you have brought up how you yourself have used this trick of using highbrow words to obfuscate things, my bullshit antenna was on high alert.

Please note, I never “asserted” that you used misplaced “big words”, I said that it “seemed” to be the case. This all within a context of me being subject to withering, unconscionable, and relentless attacks from you and Shauly.
OK I will agree that your responses started being more and more substantial and less hurtful. Nu Shoin.

If you are still in any way interested in having a reasonable discussion, which i’m starting to think that you actually ARE. Please read my honest questions (not arguments) on evolution and please respond in a cordial and respectful manner as would be the case if you were to talk to me in person.
Oh, and try to use layman’s terms. I’m not an academician, I’m a simple Baal Habos.

I will repeat again what has been my mantra here. You are highly intelligent and talented. I respect you immensely.

Peace and Love,
Leib

Leib most lay people forget that mutations occur in DNA. Not in animals or organisms, but in DNA. Sometimes those DNA mutations are harmful and sometimes not.

There are 2 types of DNA mutations as I have already explained. One is when DNA is deleted and the other when DNA is replaced. Deleted DNA is a disaster.
When a DNA molecule is replaced in Meiosis, the process that produces gametes, sperm and eggs, a DNA sequence may result in a single different amino acid in place in a protein in progeny. Normally this is fine. Sometimes it is a slight improvement on the protein and sometimes it is harmful to the protein and sometimes both as per the recessive Cystic Fibrosis allele.

So you say “I wrote that the more complex a system is, which means it has more components to it, it has a bigger chance to have detrimental effects when a mutation occurs.”

And no, that is not true. a single point mutation which in turn leads to a single amino acid replacement in a protein of 2-300 amino acids long, is sometimes harmful, sometimes not and sometimes beneficial. DNA though present in all our cells is only relevant where it is needed for expression.

Slight improvements through the addition of a single “wrong” nucleotide in a DNA strand may for example give the Sherpa in Nepal the ability to carry heavy loads in low oxygen conditions on Everest or might make you look different to your brother.

So with tiny, tiny, incremental improvements and survival of those improved entities you ultimately get speciation.

And DNA is amongst the best evidence for evolution, because it shows us that similar species are indeed similar. Even the dysfunctional vestigial DNA is quite the same in say both humans and chimps. Even the viruses our shared ancestors had, that occasionally are transcribed into our DNA (if they infect cells that make eggs and sperm) are present in both our DNA and in the apes.

I have said this to Mitch AKA Emes Rocker. In 1953 Watson and Crick discovered the double helix. At that point it was a chance in a lifetime for creationists to once and for all kill evolution by showing that we are not all related. Surprise surprise, we are.

Hi Jason,

The following explains why it seems to me that that “the more complex a system is, it has a bigger chance to have detrimental effects when a mutation occurs”.

It seems to be borne out of logical necessary. Here’s why;

A more complex system means, (by definition) that there are many important/crucial details, in which each detail is necessary in order to reach the given level of complexity. Each detail is pivotal to bring about this necessary complex functionality. If you want complex functionality, you need complex i.e. detailed instructions.

By definition, the less complex a system is, the less pivotal and crucial details it necessitates to do its job.

Sure, It is possible that even a less complex functionality should have more details than a more complex one (for example, when all the details work against each other so every detail is crucial for the balance) but statistically speaking the more complex a system, the more are its detailed instruction, where each detail is pivotal.

A point mutation will make a difference only when it hits (replaces) a pivotal detail, i.e. a detail that makes a difference, (obviously)

A difference in this pivotal detail will statistically have more chance to cause harm than good.

The more pivotal details a system has, the more it should be afraid of point mutations. For there’s more chance that it will hit those details which will break down the entire system.

Hence the more complex a system is the more chance that a point mutation will damage the system.

I don’t know where my logical deductions are off.

I will get back to the main question. As I mentioned previously, I do not think this issue has any significance to my questions on evolution. However, as a curiosity I’d like to know if and where I’m wrong.

Jason, if you find this too tiresome to respond, I will understand. It is not a crucial/pivotal detail to the main issue at hand. And we should conserve our resources for the main discussion.

Shalom

When I used the word “detail” above, I meant a single base within one sequence within a gene.

Without mapping out the human and ape genome, It would be logical to assume that their inner structure (however that is comprised of) would be the same. If the visible part is the same why not the inner workings.

The simple fact that humans are similiar to apes in many visible ways, does not prove evolution. That they have similiar DNA’s should be a matter of course.

Even if it would somehow prove that there was an evolutionary process from less complex to more, it would have no bearing on the theory (or fact) of the mechanism of evolution.
We would still need to answer my questions on the mechanism.
I noted right in the beginning that my question is not if there was an evolutionary process from the less complex to the more complex. I am befuddled with the theory that explains the mechanism of it.

In order to not repeat my earlier writings I ask you to kindly see my questions there.

>A point mutation will make a difference only when it hits (replaces) a pivotal detail, i.e. a detail that makes a difference, (obviously)

I have already stated that: A point mutation will sometimes add a different amino acid into a protein. A protein has many many amino acids. No big deal. Point mutations are by and large NOT hugely detrimental nor hugely beneficial even in humans. So again NO. What “seems to you” is absolutely irrelevant. The fact is that they can be marginally beneficial or marginally detrimental and that is all evolution needs. So your argument was that evolution would not work because of mutation in complex organisms. It absolutely can.

>That they have similiar DNA’s should be a matter of course.

I think that is a tad dishonest. Would you have promised me that in 1952 had you not have known of the theory of evolution at all?

>Without mapping out the human and ape genome, It would be logical to assume that their inner structure (however that is comprised of) would be the same. If the visible part is the same why not the inner workings.

Well no. Firstly there is no real reason for ribosomes to use the same nucleotides in the same species for the same codons. In other words DNA is a code. It is translated. It has no direct functionality but it is rather like morse code for example. Countries may have had vastly different morse code translations. Organisms could just as well have had different ribosomal translations were all species created in their kind as per the biblical account.

Secondly and more importantly, most of DNA is redundant. There is DNA that is not functional in many species but that is present. The same DNA present in Cows for example who have genes that allow grass toxins to be neutralised via the appendix. We might have the same DNA in place, but it is redundant in humans. We have our ancestors DNA. Lots and lots of it. We also have our ancestors viral DNA like I said.

I have already responded to your question in another post. Given that natural selection occurs today, as per the peppered moth/Malasian Gecko/Nazi gas chamber, it is indeed as you rightly say no big deal. It had to have occurred in the past too, why would it not have. Accumulation of tiny changes over a vast incomprehensible amount of time is what we see today.

>A point mutation will make a difference only when it hits (replaces) a pivotal detail, i.e. a detail that makes a difference, (obviously)

I have already stated that: A point mutation will sometimes add a different amino acid into a protein. A protein has many many amino acids. No big deal. Point mutations are by and large NOT hugely detrimental nor hugely beneficial even in humans. So again NO. What “seems to you” is absolutely irrelevant. The fact is that they can be marginally beneficial or marginally detrimental and that is all evolution needs. So your argument was that evolution would not work because of mutation in complex organisms. It absolutely can.

>That they have similiar DNA’s should be a matter of course.

I think that is a tad dishonest. Would you have promised me that in 1952 had you not have known of the theory of evolution at all?

>Without mapping out the human and ape genome, It would be logical to assume that their inner structure (however that is comprised of) would be the same. If the visible part is the same why not the inner workings.

Well no. Firstly there is no real reason for ribosomes to use the same nucleotides in the same species for the same codons. In other words DNA is a code. It is translated. It has no direct functionality but it is rather like morse code for example. Countries may have had vastly different morse code translations. Organisms could just as well have had different ribosomal translations were all species created in their kind as per the biblical account.

Secondly and more importantly, most of DNA is redundant. There is DNA that is not functional in many species but that is present. The same DNA present in Cows for example who have genes that allow grass toxins to be neutralised via the appendix. We might have the same DNA in place, but it is redundant in humans. We have our ancestors DNA. Lots and lots of it. We also have our ancestors viral DNA like I said.

I have already responded to your question in another post. Given that natural selection occurs today, as per the peppered moth/Malaysian Gecko/Nazi gas chamber, it is indeed as you rightly say no big deal. It had to have occurred in the past too, why would it not have. Accumulation of tiny changes over a vast incomprehensible amount of time is what we see today.

Lo and behold! An actual discussion is going on. Ok. So let me try to add my 2 cents and see if an answer will stay an answer without the question being repeated, yet again, in different version. As before, I’m attempting a crash course style with minimal high vocabulary here..
@ leib. It seems that your main concern with evolution as we know it now, is that “the more pivotal details a system has, the more it should be afraid of point mutations” and therefore the odds are against the system working.

1) The living organism is a floozy machine that has a lot of extra parts it can function without (extra kidney, lung, etc.) And is never a perfect copy (as indicated by fingerprint and facial look, on a simple scale).
It is NOT like a machine where taking a spring out, a spring that is there specifically put in for a reason, will probably result in some in some sort of breakdown. It is more like a computer program for a game. Adding and subtracting 1’s and 0’s at the fundamental level, might make the game freeze when you hit some question marked box (in DNA –nonsense. ex. Changes codon in mRNA to termination codon) or send you back a few steps (in DNA –missense. ex. when not at active site), or it might allow you to jump higher (in DNA –mutagens. ex. thymine dimers being repaired).
In regard to your question: you should not regard the living cell as a multi-part machine that was designed to function only when all the pieces are in place, therefore we aren’t as scared of mutations. The DNA is a bunch of binary 0’s and 1’s in a computer program. ok, so it’s even longer, still essentially the same risk as in a short program. Again, the risk of the program breaking down from a single 1 to 0 mutation, doesn’t increase as the program grows bigger.

2) Exactly that is what natural selection is about. Yes mutation happens every single time (our kids look different than us and their siblings), and everyone is different. Natural selection just assures that those with better techniques of survival, have more percentages of -surviving, and therefore inherit that trait and their version of genes, to the future generation. Who in turn, again, have natural selection giving those with better surviving traits, better chances.
In regard to your question: we ARE “afraid of point mutations”, thousands of babies aren’t born every day because of it, but the system works, by killing those babies (Otherwise 2 humans could’ve had a baby without blood or without a lung) and by killing those not adapted to the environment as well as their neighbor (kinda like a lion after a pack of zebras. one, the weakest runner or slowest to respond, will be eaten regardless). Natural selection WORKS, by killing those of us not genetically immune to cancer, AIDS, and the common virus. By NOT allowing gigantic differences (like a different species suddenly being born) but allowing transitional change built upon change, we have the patched up, half junk, and sometimes upside-down, beings, we now categorize (by assigning labels) into our own perceptions of “species” names.

3) A protein created as a byproduct from before that had no use, can suddenly get a use and vital part, when a new protein or gene gets introduced.
Like the 20 years+ test on bacteria (50,000 generations) that Richard Lenski has done on 12 different “lineages”. They all came from the same E-coli population in a flask, but after keeping them in separate strains, every day introduced to fresh medium, not only have they evolved (size and shape) and diverged into their own paths by now, but one “population” has developed an ability to consume citrate, a source of energy in the medium their ancestors couldn’t exploit (as a matter of fact, a characteristic feature of E. coli as a species!).
This function of utilizing citrate needs 2 different elements, and of course they found that element 1 was included a while back, at generation 31,000 (as a non-adaptive potential mutation), and only when element 2 arrived, at generation 33,127, did this bacteria gain the new ability. There you go. “Spontaneous, machine, multi part, evolution!!!”. Lol.
In regard to your question: when a DNA is “predisposed” by having parts that aren’t useful at the time, tag along, it brings down the possibility of developing something else that is useful for the cell as a whole, from one in a trillion to accessible levels.

P.S. evolution is NOT only a theory that explains the past tense like the fossils, tree rings, and carbon clocks, it now explains DNA, amino acid sequences, and proteins we share with other living beings, on its proper branches in the tree of life. Evolution is NOT something that can only be viewed on our genome and dead ancestors, Richard Lenski has demonstrated it with the above, and Peter and Rosemary Grant have spent decades in the Galápagos Islands observing and writing about the evolution of beak shapes in certain birds, known as Darwin’s finches, in response to changes in seed availability caused by a fluctuating climate and competition NOW DAYS. Microbiologists, too, observe evolution in action in the lab, including bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics. If you took any Microbiology class with a decent professor, you should have done that by yourself, as did I.

>So your argument was that evolution would not work because of mutation in complex organisms. It absolutely can.

I only said that it would be “more difficult” to add info to a complicated structure where it affects the functionality and that it should be beneficial. The more detail it has , the more precision it needs.

>The fact is that they can be marginally beneficial or marginally detrimental

Would you agree to my point if point mutation would make major changes? Due to the fact that in the end we ARE talking about major changes, my position still holds true. In a complex system (major) changes are more likely to be detrimental than in a less complex system. It shouldn’t matter if these changes are in tiny increments or not. In the end there’s one point, one proverbial straw, that makes a pivotal change.

I’m not really sure if I’m right with the above. You might be right here, and it is your territory after all. I would want to think about your position some more. But I’d rather focus on the real issue at hand, (which is, Pesach in a few hours, huh?)

>Would you have promised me that in 1952 had you not have known of the theory of evolution at all?

Depends if you would have lent me that razor you used a while back.

>Organisms could just as well have had different ribosomal translations were all species created in their kind as per the biblical account.

l think that here again, Mr Ockham would disagree with you.

Please note that this is not about creationism at all, questioning or even disproving evolution doesn’t necessarily prove creationism, duh.

Gotta run now, I will think about your argument of redundancy and will also tackle our main issue in the near future.

Thanks and Gut Yomtov

Occams razor does not dictate that two paving slabs will have the same sand constitution underneath, because they both look like paving slabs.

There is no reason for various different organisms to have the same allele’s too. You can say yeah, god was running out of time and wanted to keep it simple. But evolution is more probable given the weight of evidence supporting it. By saying that god did it that way, all you do is excuse real evidence with willy nilly arguments, and it is observable as shaul pointed out.

Nice Saul, very nice!

Of course, the genetic evidence for common decent is more than just “they look the same.” Take the telomere right in the middle of the (fused) human chromosome two for example. A designer would have to be pretty perverse to put a telomere in the middle of a newly designed chromosome that already looks suspiciously like the fusion of two ape chromosomes in any case. What was It trying to do — throw off reverse engineers? Afraid of copyright violations?

Jason,

I wrote;
“Without mapping out the human and ape genome, It would be logical to assume that their inner structure (however that is comprised of) would be the same. If the visible part is the same why not the inner workings.”

Your Response;

Well no. Firstly there is no real reason for ribosomes to use the same nucleotides in the same species for the same codons. In other words DNA is a code. It is translated. It has no direct functionality but it is rather like morse code for example. Countries may have had vastly different morse code translations. Organisms could just as well have had different ribosomal translations were all species created in their kind as per the biblical account.

My counter argument is that Occams razor should very well apply here.

To quote Wikipedia quoting Issac Newtons interpretations of Occam’s razor;

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.”[9]

Now, we agree that apes and humans have a very large number of “same natural effect”, we therefore “must, so far as possible assign the same cause”. Which in our case would be the DNA coding system. Following Mr Ockham we shan’t postulate any different coding system except where absolutely necessary.

You wrote;
”Occams razor does not dictate that two paving slabs will have the same sand constitution underneath, because they both look like paving slabs.”

My response here;

Inasmuch as there is sameness in the bonding strength of the pavers, we will surely assume that it is due to the same cause, namely, sand constitution. Obviously, if sand constitution is not considered a cause for any of the shared effects of these two pavers, Occam’s razor will not apply then.
DNA code is the mechanical cause for the way we are. So inasmuch as we share “effects” with apes, the mechanical causes should be the same.

You write;

“You can say yeah, god was running out of time and wanted to keep it simple. But evolution is more probable given the weight of evidence supporting it. By saying that god did it that way, all you do is excuse real evidence with willy nilly arguments”

I have pointed out time and again, this here is not about pitting God against Evolution. I’m simply asking questions on the theory of Evolution. I’m not postulating a different theory here, be it creationism or anything else. (This point goes for Baal Devorim’s comment too). In any event you can rest assured that “I do not believe in the same God that you are denying”.

Shauly,

First and foremost, thanks for coming back.

You write,

>It seems that your MAIN CONCERN with evolution as we know it now, is that “the more pivotal details a system has, the more it should be afraid of point mutations” and therefore the odds are against the system working.

Please don’t take this in the wrong way. I do not mean to preach now (or ever) and I don’t mean to be nasty. I do beg you to please please read my writings. In some instances it seems like you are giving my writings just a cursory glance.
I cannot exaggerate how many times I have written that “I do not think this issue has any significance to my questions on evolution”. Why would you go ahead and write that this is my “main concern”?

(My writings are sometimes detailed in a pivotal way, one point mutation can wreck it all:-))

I’m pointing this out because the above seemed to be the case in many of your previous posts. Shauly my friend, I’m not trying to settle any scores here, I’m simply writing this in the interest of this discussion.
BTW, I thank you for that compliment about my personality. [insert here some BS humbleness on my part :-)]

>the risk of the program breaking down from a single 1 to 0 mutation, doesn’t increase as the program grows bigger.

Here’s why I’m still questioning your position, [as mentioned to Jason, I want to think about this some more.]

1) We agree that point mutations in any program code, regardless if it is a “short or long program” (i.e. less complex or more complex entity), will have have a propensity to be more harmful than beneficial,(I know, I know, we are talking tiny tiny, but that doesn’t change anything, we’ll just talk about tiny benefits and harms, and tiny levels of complexity).

2) We would be talking in the case where the more complex entity cannot simply disregard the additional features and simply resort to its old functionality. (the more sophisticated system either works or doesn’t)

3) Let’s assign the short program code “one segment of sequences” and the long program code, “5 segments of sequences”.

4) Each new segment/sequence has the same harm/benefit ratio, and has the same mutation rate as the first. (sort of a copy paste with the formula intact). In simple terms, “everything else being equal”.

5) To reiterate point 2, We are talking in a case where we need EVERY ONE of these segments not to be harmed. If one of these segments have lost its functionality, our whole system breaks down.

6) It should be obvious that the “longer program code” that has 5 segments, (i.e. more complex) has more worries for breakdown than the “short program code” (less complex) by a factor of 5.

7) It should be obvious that the more complex system (while gaining in functionality,) has a side effect of being more prone to complete disfunction/breakdown thru mutations

As I wrote to Jason, I will be thinking about this particular issue, and I’m not asking you to be give me lengthy explanations. I will do my own homework. I just figured I’ll show you where I’m at, at this point.

Let me repeat, I do not see this to be an essential part of my questions on Evolution.
All I’m suggesting is , as I wrote in previous posts,

“The more advanced the system is the smaller the ratio of beneficial mutations.”

“the more complex a system is, which means it has more components to it, it has a bigger chance to have detrimental effects when a mutation occurs.”

“My point was not in any way a main argument in my gripes on evolution it was just pointing out how mutations should become exponentially more harmful as the complexity rises.”

As I understand you, you disagree with the above quotes, right?

I’ll get back to your other points later.

Ok. After reading your points on what I wrote, I still fully belief my answers I have provided, explaining the works on evolution, clarify it enough. Really hate going in circles, so let’s both leave it here. Ok. You think there might be a “tiny” problem with the theory as we now know it, because “mutations should become exponentially more harmful as the complexity rises”. Gotchu. Agree to disagree.

Nature does not attend philosophy classes.

WHY would DNA coding be the same in two species, HOW would those two mechanism come to be in the same shape and form.

It is logical to say because of Occam razor: apes and humans both have DNA, both have ribosomes etc, therefore both make use of the DNA mechanism.

It is not logical to say because of Occam razor: because both have DNA, without any process to back this up, they would both have their genetic code in the same order. They would function the same in any other order.

>It should be obvious that the “longer program code” that has 5 segments, (i.e. more complex) has more worries for breakdown than the “short program code” (less complex) by a factor of 5.

Remember, protein in complex organisms are not necessarily more complex. There are just more of them. DNA segments are not necessarily longer, they are just more of them. On the whole there is of course more DNA, but DNA reproduction is a remarkably safe and secure process.

Plus most mutations end up as recessive allele’s in sexual reproduction, and there is enough healthy protein in an organism to make up for the ineffective version. The ineffective version might still be better at some things. I have already pointed to sickle cell anaemia as an example of this.

Yet safe polymorphisms are abundant all around us in the human species alone.

Shauly,

Fair enough, we should focus on my main problem with evolution, which isn’t tiny at all.

Jason,

> Nature does not attend philosophy classes.

As per my previous quote from wiki, Natural Philosopher Sir Isaac Newton, father of modern science, has forced it to attend. It’s all downhill from there.

> 1) It is logical to say because of Occam razor: apes and humans both have DNA, both have ribosomes etc, therefore both make use of the DNA mechanism.

> 2) It is not logical to say because of Occam razor: because both have DNA, without any process to back this up, they would both have their genetic code in the same order. They would function the same in any other order.

If you are right with 2, (which I’ll soon show why I disagree) why does Occams razor apply to 1? Just as we can envision a different gene language with the same end result, i.e. “natural effects”, we can envision a different set up with the same effects. Are you saying that the only way we can have the human and ape structure is with DNA, ribosomes etc.? Why?

In the end everything is language, binary language that is. DNA, ribosomes, proteins, and soft cheese, are all part of a large complex language of yes and no. The essential characteristics of, say, letter ‘A’, is a set of specific yes and no’s (the contrast), we are simply quick enough to look at it as one, just as we almost do with words. (please don’t shoot me for not explaining this at length)

As to 2, It’s true that due to me not claiming any underlying theory for existence. (at least not in this discussion) there’s obviously no underlying logic why to assume one language rather than two. If we don’t have a working theory we cannot asses if it favors one language rather than 2. (this is, I think, your argument)

My bone of contention with 2 is this. The underlying logic of Occams razor seems to be as follows

The realm we are functioning out of, is a world of limit, if we freely hypothesize unlimited scenarios we are inevitably going to be wrong. This applies to large scale issues as it applies to very local small scale ones. The less hypothesis’, models, scenarios, etc. we conjecture, will therefore be statistically more accurate. (see Wiki,)

Therefore, even on the chance that I don’t have an underlying understanding of how things happened etc., I will never extrapolate ‘two’ when ‘one’ works.

I therefore defend my honesty and claim that in 1952 I would assume the DNA language for humans and apes to be the same.

Interestingly enough, the ‘Occam’s razor’ issue which should really have no connection to our main issue (remember I agreed, right in my first sentence on evolution, that the world and all its organisms evolved from less complex to more complex), actually is very much related to one of my MAIN contentions with evolution. (Occam’s razor in slow motion,huh?)

One of my main questions on evolution (Which I need to flesh out some more for popular consumption),is that you are using unlimited resources, time and material, without accounting for the limited parameters we are faced with. You are just assuming that it works for after all we are here now. You would probably agree that you have no way of knowing what the chances are for a remake. So in the end we still are lucky sons of…… or unlucky ones. (Noach Lo Shelo Nivrah?)

Shauly, pleeeeease don’t pounce at me. How about just answering this simple question do you have a clue as to the chances of another world with our level of complexity happening anytime soon, the original state of things being equal (anytime soon meaning geologically soon, like 3, 4 billion years, give or take). It’s a yes or no question (as everything else is), no need for lengthy explanations.

As opposed to your very ingrained opinion, I do know a thing or two about evolution. Try to examine my questions from that perspective. Please give me the benefit of the doubt.

Jason,
your original application for this razor, way back,sounded inaccurate as well. I was to busy protecting my vitals to respond to that then. (Tofasto Merubah Lo Tofasto, right?)

Tofasto Merubah says take only what you are sure that you are entitled to take. Occams razor says even if you are not sure if any one of these options are more accurate (if the more complex one is true then the less complex is possibly out of the window), still go ahead and take the lesser one (i.e. less theories, less conjecturing facts, etc.)

I wouldn’t extrapolate Occams razor from Tofasto Merubah, because Tofasto Merubah Lo Tofasto.

A little Pilpul never harmed anyone. Especially Chol Hamoed.

Cheers

If your Kabalistic Aristotelian rule book way of applying the razor was practised, a simple but demonstrably false theory would win over a complex but demonstrably true one. Think about it.

>large complex language of yes and no
White noise. Possibly untrue, clue: the dead cat, but I am no physicist.

>we can envision a different set up with the same effects. Are you saying that the only way we can have the human and ape structure is with DNA, ribosomes etc.? Why?

Yes we can, but there is no need for such a theory and hence there is no evidence for it.

>Obviously, if sand constitution is not considered a cause for any of the shared effects of these two pavers, Occam’s razor will not apply then.
DNA code is the mechanical cause for the way we are. So inasmuch as we share “effects” with apes, the mechanical causes should be the same.

The mechanical cause yes. The order in which it is present no.

Think about chromosome 2 too.

>what the chances are for a remake.

What are the chances that the same people who have won the UK lotto will win it again in the same order since its inception?

I think we are done with this. Now for archaeology and the bible? Or perhaps the Documentary Hypothesis?

@Leib. You write: “Are you saying that the only way we can have the human and ape structure is with DNA, ribosomes etc.? Why?”

Will you be angry at me for deducing from that statement that you simply might not know enough of biology and co.? I donno. Maybe I’m not reading deeply enough into your writing. I confess that I don’t have as much energy to chew over these subjects, when I’ve chewed em for quite a few years by now. So maybe I should just shut up and opt out of the debate if I’m not up to it? Maybe. U’d be right by telling me to.

Anyways, just to answer the question you posed to me, I agree that we don’t know the chances of a remake, as a matter of fact, I’d even go as far as to say that there are very little chances of evolution hitting the exact same path. Its a tree. And just like u can’t really predict the tree path from the kernel, or where a leaf will end up sprouting, or where 2 branches will diverge, you pretty much can’t predict Homo sapiens from the evolutionary path at all. From what we now understand of life conditions (bottom of the ocean hydrothermal vents, bacteria in acidic layers, and life existing in the most unimaginable conditions), life probably DOES exist, and IS likely to have evolved somewhere else too. We now have thousands of life-attainable planets documented. If self replicating matter occurred on some other planet, I’d speculate that it will end up looking very different indeed.

So are we just lucky sons of bitches, was your question? Not according to the octopus or flying squirrel. According to them, they are the lucky ones. We arnt any “higher” or more “worthy” as far as evolution is concerned. Are u a lucky son of a bitch that your sperm made it to your moms egg faster than the millions of others in that ejaculation? For you, yes.

Ok leib, let’s hear your real beefs with evolution. Try to simply state your questions that you think prevents us from using the evolutionary model as an answer to -DNA and eventually protein, replication and expression, -all of living matter structured from the same basic cell, -our vestiges of ancestors in our DNA, in our retinas, in our vertebrae, hip joints, and knees, well suited for quadrupeds and not upright walking, our appendix etc.., -other animals using the same structure for their needs (bat wings and money tails), -fossils and their DNA (which let’s us even know where those branches diverged and how far of cousins we are to whom, alive and dead), skulls gradually changing, and even “missing links” found in its records, -adaptations we see NOW DAYS working according to the evolutionary model as I’ve shown above, show me why the evolution theory that explains it all pretty nicely, doesn’t do it for ya.

You write;
“Remember, protein in complex organisms are not necessarily more complex. There are just more of them. DNA segments are not necessarily longer, they are just more of them.

How does that change anything? We still need the whole lot of “more DNA’s” to not to be harmed. Having 20 DNA’s where each one must function or the other 19 will be useless, still multiplies the harm/benefit ratio vs a single DNA by a factor of 20 (remebern we are assuming that there’s more chance of harm than benefit)

Oops, didn’t see these new posts.

Schroedigers cat is Yes AND No hold it we can’t run before walking, ight?

Oops didn’t see the new comments, chol hamoed fun…
Ach Jason,The Heilige ‘Schroediger Katz’ ah ah, mammesh le’maaleh mitaam ve’daas.

I didn’t mean to opine duality as opposed to oneness. That would be against my original point (or it wouldn’t contradictions may apply )

I just meant that the world as we know it (keyword ‘know it’) is comprised of simple yes and no.

Oops I’m in front of the line already ….. Talk soon…. If I make it out alive……aaaaaahhh

>How does that change anything?

It doesn’t really, as I said before, “On the whole there is of course more DNA, but DNA replication is a remarkably safe and secure process.”

Advanced organisms do have better proof reading mechanisms in the form of more advanced DNA polymerase enzymes.

Jason,

Statistical predictions are used when we don’t know the facts. Sure a true complex fact will trump a false simple one.

White Noise,
Possibly, I thought you have some hangup due to the fact that it’s a language. So I argued that everything is binary language.

You write; “The mechanical cause yes. The order in which it is present no”.

You are basing Occams razor on “underlying logic” I have tried to explain above that even when we have no knowledge why we should necessarily economize the facts, Occams razor still applies.

There are other hypothesis’ on mechanism of evolution (not mutations, survival etc.) Which dictate keeping it one language. But I specifically don’t want and don’t ned to go there for Occam’s razor to apply.

Uk lotto;
Now were treading on dangerous territory. Are you really saying that in the end it’s simply the luck of the draw.
I’m referring specifically to your UK lotto reference etc.
We can just say chance for the whole Shebang and Gomarnu.
(Shauly that is what I assumed you were saying in 1 of 4 way back.)

>I have tried to explain above that even when we have no knowledge why we should necessarily economize the facts, Occams razor still applies.

I have already responded to that why do I bother..

>You write; “The mechanical cause yes. The order in which it is present no”. You are basing Occams razor on “underlying logic” I have tried to explain above that even when we have no knowledge why we should necessarily economize the facts, Occams razor still applies.

DNA mechanics has nothing to with the order in which they are present and how much redundant DNA there is in a chromosome. Some alleles are spread out between different chromosomes It is exactly like sand under a paving stone.

>Now were treading on dangerous territory. Are you really saying that in the end it’s simply the luck of the draw.

There is an element of chance yes. But you used the words “remake”.

The definition you used “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”

DNA in the same order does not better explain appearance, the razor does not apply. In fact by adding the clause “in the same order” you violate the razor.

> I have already responded to that why do I bother..

Harrumph

> The definition you used “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”

>DNA in the same order does not better explain appearance, the razor does not apply. In fact by adding the clause “in the same order” you violate the razor.

Nothing is necessary, everything is arbitrary, i.e. there’s always another option to get the same results. That doesn’t make it less of a cause.
Right now this DNA language is what makes it happen. It’s its true CAUSE. A computer program code is the cause for the program to function, regardless if it is essentially arbitrary.

Here’s where your aforementioned white noise changes color. All reality is binary code language. If you feel that a language, due to it being arbitrary, is not a cause, then nothing is a cause.

You are also mentioning redundancy. We are not talking about redundancy now. This particular issue is about Occams razor applying to arbitrary language. Let’s keep ourselves on topic.

>Right now this DNA language is what makes it happen. It’s its true CAUSE.

You have forgotten how we have gotten here in the first place. Hypothetical 1952, DNA we know how it functions, will it show heredity or not?

Do you make the rules of this debate? Interspersed redundancy shows heredity, so it is very much in place where I put it.

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances” Yet you “have tried to explain that even when we have no knowledge why we should necessarily economize the facts, Occams razor still applies.” at the expense of “underlying logic”.

WWhen you are responding to the following paragraph that I wrote;

“The mechanical cause yes. The order in which it is present no”. You are basing Occams razor on “underlying logic” I have tried to explain above that even when we have no knowledge why we should necessarily economize the facts, Occams razor still applies.”

I’d think you should agree that the response focus strictly about the applicability of Occam’s razor to DNA language.

” and how much redundant DNA there is in a chromosome ” simply does not belong. I’m sure you realized that I have never ever responded to that. I clearly stated that I will deal with that later. Sure you can say “hey what about that other issue”, but throwing it in the mix is a bit misleading,

Am I asking too much here????

>“We are to admit no more ’causes’ of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to ‘explain’ their appearances”

Surely we agree that the DNA language is a cause that explains the appearance of the cell/human/ape.

>Yet you “have tried to explain that even when we have no knowledge why we should necessarily economize the facts, Occams razor still applies.” at the expense of “underlying logic”.

And yes, the ’cause’ that ‘explains’ the appearance, is arbitrary, it has no underlying logic, there’s no reason for it to be like this and without Occam’s razor we would argue that there’s no reason to assume that it will be the cause for some similar structure.

That is precisely where Occam’s razor moves in.

> It doesn’t really, as I said before, “On the whole there is of course more DNA, but DNA replication is a remarkably safe and secure process.”

But we are discussing if those mutations, however few and far between, will be more harmful as the complexity grows. So it is completely irrelevant how true the replication usually is.

> Advanced organisms do have better proof reading mechanisms in the form of more advanced DNA polymerase enzymes.

I have responded to that waaay back. We are not talking when DNA has become so amazingly sophisticated that it takes care of all issues.

Also, what you are saying is in the end another way where the mutation process slows down. That is another part of your equation.
But as I pointed out previously, you should have no compunction adding this hardship into the mix, for you do not have any numbers to start. Anything goes, no restrictions apply.

If it has no logic how does it explain? NO Newton’s version of the Razor is not the one you would now prefer to use, however much of an inconvenience that is to you now.

>Surely we agree that the DNA language is a cause that explains the appearance of the cell/human/ape.

The order in which the DNA is shaped (with interspersed redundancy too) does not explain the appearance of the cell/human/ape. The content of the sequences be they in any old order does. Sequence 2 after sequence 1 could just as well be sequence 1 after sequence 65 and functionality will remain intact.

>DNA has become so amazingly sophisticated

DNA sophisticated? What on earth are you talking about?

>mutation process slows down.
And perhaps it just remains as constant as it needs to for its own survival? I have already pointed to higher mutation rates amongst asexual bacteria who lack gene transfer mechanisms.

Anyway, I see no further purpose to this. I hope you have learnt something here, and that that will help you in making a truly educated guess on evolution in the future.

YOU WRITE; DNA sophisticated? What on earth are you talking about?

You write; Advanced organisms do have better proof reading mechanisms in the form of more advanced DNA polymerase enzymes.

You really didn’t get my point???
Are you still hung up on my English too??

Why is this discussion so hateful??

Jason,

You write;

The order in which the DNA is shaped (with interspersed redundancy too) does not explain the appearance of the cell/human/ape. The content of the sequences be they in any old order does. Sequence 2 after sequence 1 could just as well be sequence 1 after sequence 65 and functionality will remain intact.

Now you throw in a new argument, namely, ‘the order of the sequences’.

It has been very obvious again and again that we both have been talking about the order within the sequence, or as you call it, “content of the squence”. This is what is called “genetic code”, the world over.

In one of your first comments on this particular issue, you have compared it to a language. Your argument was that different countries have different languages. You clearly agreed that this language is what gives instructions and function to the cell system.

Your above writing clearly referes to the “content of sequence”.

You also wrote that you agree that the ape and the human should have DNA and ribosomes, (and that’s where the similiarities should end) but should not have the same genetic code, i.e. order of the “content of the sequence”.

Again, it seems very clear that you are talking about “content of sequence”.

The content of sequence, the language of the genes, which gives instruction and carries out the building of the proties is what I (and you) were arguing about. Please be straight here.

I’d love to get an idea what this strange (unfair?) way of discussion, is all about!!

But in the end if you’re out, there’s nothing really to discuss.

I did learn a lot from this discussion. Thanks.

In my very first comment regarding occam, I categorically say “There is no reason for various different organisms to have the same allele’s too”

You have used the word allele in the past so forgive me for thinking that you knew what it meant. I use allele placement i.e. functional sequence placement, and redundancy placement in dealing with your counterargument of Occam.

Hence I say: It is not logical to say because of Occam razor: because both have DNA, without any process to back this up, they would both have their genetic code in the same order. They would function the same in any other order.

You have misread me all along. It would be funny if it wasn’t so time consuming.

> In my very first comment regarding occam, I categorically say “There is no reason for various different organisms to have the same allele’s too”

Your very own statment which you quote here clearly shows that you were talking the “content of the sequence” not how (the order) it is placed.

“Same Allele” is very clearly NOT “placement of Allele”. How is that not blatently obvious?

> You have used the word allele in the past so forgive me for thinking that you knew what it meant.

All is forgiven, you were right all along…… I knew what it meant.

“allele, Definition: An allele is an alternative form of a gene (one member of a pair) that is located at a specific position on a specific chromosome.”

Genes and Alleles are almost synonymous. The strict definition of Gene is also A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a “specific location on a chromosome”

This then has nothing to do with my understanding of Allele. You simply claim that when you would say “same gene” you would mean ’sameness’ as to its location as opposed to its sequence.

It is also obvious from very many of your posts above that you were referring to the “sequence content”, not to “placement”. I pasted a few of those posts above.

This is really becoming very strange, almost like a game, where you who has seemingly taken biology courses would have an easy time obfuscating.
I will not try to prove this point again. I’m giving you free reign.

I am quite annoyed by your attitude here. In fact it is quite outrageous. I am being 100% truthful and honest when I say that I was all along referring to order as in location.

I used strictly true terms with specific meanings in the correct sequence. You misunderstood them. But do not blame me for that. You fail exams in the sciences if you do not use correct terms.

You kept on not understanding why I was referring to redundant DNA, I now understand why that is, it is because you did not realise that I was talking about sequence and position. In that context redundancy is highly relevant.

I said “DNA mechanics has nothing to with the order in which they are present and how much redundant DNA there is in a (note -) chromosome.”

I continue: “Some alleles are spread out between different chromosomesIt is exactly like sand under a paving stone.”

I said “Interspersed redundancy shows heredity” keyword Interspersed. Interspersed betweeen functional sequences. It can mean nothing else.

I said “The mechanical cause yes. The order in which it is present no.” sequence IS the mechanical cause. Order of sequences is not the mechanical cause.

Go through what I have said again and you ought to realise that now.

>I pasted a few of those posts above.

No you have not, I have already said “I use allele placement i.e. functional sequence placement, and redundancy placement in dealing with your counterargument of Occam.”

Prior to when you mention the razor argument I did indeed refer to sequence and codons.

Jason,

I have not intention to annoy you. As an aside, I have no interest in being annoyed either. Many of your snide remarks annoy me too. You are amazingly knowledgable, it would be wonderful to have discussions without being venomous to one another.

I agree that in the latter part of this discussion the word “order” took on significance. I did not put any thought on that because a “sequence content” is also all about being ‘ordered’ in a certain way.

I do not see how your words in the first half of this “occam” discussion could mean ‘placement’ rather than ‘content’.

Yet, I will accept your interpretation of your own words.

*yawn*

I second the motion

Highly suggest all people in this discussion watch the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” -a 2008 documentary film, directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a mainstream conspiracy to keep God out of science laboratories and classrooms. The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the Nazi Holocaust, communism, atheism, and eugenics.

Emes, if you read any dawkins book, imma re-watch it. With you. How’s that for a deal?

Do not read any reviews on this film from the mainstream media as all reviewers had to give it a bad review to avoid being fired from their positions. I happen to think this is a most severe ultra orthodoxies in the world.

Dawkins looks very foolish in the movie as he is unable to provide answers for the most basic attacks on his theories.

College professors lose tenure and are fired for not accepting evolution 100%.

Everyone who is pro evolution in this forum has been tainted by a society that is afraid to go against this orthodoxy. Many science professors have told me privately that they don’t really buy into Evolution but have to keep quiet about it.

I know a molecular biologist in Monsey with several patents who proves beyond a shadow of a doubt on the molecular cell level, the mathematic improbability of evolution. He gives lectures on this on College campuses although most will not allow him on campus.

But like I said earlier, if you want party and blow off the Torah you can buy into Evolution. If you want the emes, you have to face up to the truth and just do it. (And find a way to like it too!!)

Uh huh. Uh huh. Hmmmm. Uh huh. And how does that make you feel?

Shauly Hayokor,

I wrote; “Are you saying that the only way we can have the human and ape structure is with DNA, ribosomes etc.? Why?”

You responded; Will you be angry at me for deducing from that statement that you simply might not know enough of biology and co.? I donno. Maybe I’m not reading deeply enough into your writing.

Maybe so. Maybe no. Maybe Maybe.

My point was that we can hypothesize a total different universe where there would still be man, and ape, and Matzah, yet with a completelyl different underlying structure. Can we not? I was talking about a clearly hypothetical scenario of an entire different biology system, where the biology and co. that you are so familiar with will be irrelevant (nightmare huh?)

Gut Shabbos

My point is, that maybe someone dies in russia every time you pick up your right hand, and maybe we were all created this morning with pre-programmed cultures and families in our minds, and maybe the tooth fairy does exist, and maybe the story of snow white was originally the torah, and maybe you are just a pickled brain in a jar with a huge imagination making us all up, and maybe, just maybe, even though its highly unlikely, my point is that you have no point.

Maybe.

My friends–especially Reb Shauly: Here are some wise words from Rav Avigdor Miller ZTL:

Please do not to be fooled by terminology such as ‘mother nature’ did this or ‘mother nature’ provided that. This is a clever phrase to sidestep the real issue of life: It’s either accident-provided or Creator-provided. That which we say in our prayers, “Ma rabu ma’asecha Hashem, kulom b’chochmah asisa – How great are Your deeds Hashem, that they are all invested with wisdom.” This means that everything in the world has plan and purpose – and the thinking, disciplined person can see the Creator in everything around him.

You see the hand of G-d in every seed. Every apple comes with coupons inside: Buy one and get a tree for free. The seed is not like a battery where, if you put a battery the wrong way in the flashlight, it won’t work. If you put the seed in the ground the wrong way, the roots would not go up and the flowers go down. Rather, the seed is a mini-computer always directing the plant in the right direction. Take a look at the branches of any tree. I challenge anyone to find a tree that has branches one on top of another. The branches are always staggered so that there should be ample shade and so that every leaf should receive unblocked life-sustaining light from the sun in order to carry out its miraculous photosynthesis.

Nowadays, food is packaged in waterproof wrappers to prevent spoilage. But if you think about it, the skin of a single apple is more ingenious than any of these wrappers. The apple peel contains an oil which not only renders it waterproof (like artificial wrappers attempt to do), but also emits an aroma which makes the fruit more desirable. The skin also indicates through color the exact ripeness of the fruit. Furthermore, the color makes the fruit more attractive, arousing the appetite of its observers. (Imagine how successful a product would be if marketers could emulate all this!) So in such an insignificant and mundane item as an apple, we have an example of the wonderful might and greatness of our Creator.

Why does the sky contain so many galaxies; infinitely more than any man, in an entire lifetime, will never be able to plummet. Since the whole purpose of the creation is for the benefit of man, why did G-d make such a vast expanse that it is beyond our reach? The reason is that sole purpose of the far-flung cosmos was to give us a heightened awareness of the vastness of G-d Himself for, if the world would be covered with a simple ceiling, our conceptualization of G-d would be much smaller. Now, when we visualize the expanse of the universe, we have a greater sense of the awesome vastness of Hashem. Thus,”S’u eineichem l’morom u’reu mi bora eileh — Lift your eyes up high and you will see (i.e., grasp) Who created all these things.

Shauly,
You write “my point is that you have no point”

It might be advantageous for all parties involved, that you actually know what the issue is before you respond.

It is not becoming for someone like you to disagree without knowing what exactly is being said.

Here’s where I made my above point.

Jason seemed to be arguing that the DNA code is essentially arbitrary, . He argued that it’s like a morse code where the language is set by convention not by necessity.
Yet he somehow still was of the opinion that the although “this” dna code is arbitrary, “a” DNA code is necessary for us to have the organisms as we know.

I called him out on this distinction. I argued that “a” dna is also not a necessity. Theoretically we could’ve had an entirely different ‘underlying mechanism’ and still have the same functionality we have now.

I added that just as he understands that the dna language is arbitrary, he should realize that all of reality is language hence all is arbitrary. (I mentioned then that I might need to better explain why everything is language, please look it up above)

Other than showing that yet again you respond without reading the issue at hand, you haven’t added anything to this issue.

I would venture to say that 90 percent of your responses are not responding to what I’m really saying.

Leib, please dont quote me in your own words with you own interpretation to fit.

Shauly, you probably have came across the importance of loci in identifying allele presence across various species.

Leib uses his very own rule book here and assumes we must all conform. e.g. when I said “allele, Definition: An allele is an alternative form of a gene (one member of a pair) that is located at a specific position on a specific chromosome.”

his response was: “This then has nothing to do with my understanding of Allele.” and so, I could not have been referring to locus. In fact I mention interspersed redundancy, sequences within chromosomes repeatedly and even chromosome 2 as per Baal Devorim. Leib is adamant that my points were what he thought them to be when they quite clearly were not at all.

Hence I too would venture to say say that 90 percent of his responses are not in response to what I was actually saying.

Mitch/Emes, I too have read miller, Leib here understands evolution a lot better than did Miller who in other writings apologises almost, for things like domestic violence.

Jason,

I have agreed to accept your interpretation. I should have been more circumspect in my wording to Shauly. Sorry about that .

How can a non-scientist honestly ascertain if scientists are correct? Or, do we simply accept whatever scientists tell us, for after all, they are the experts?

Do scientists have biases and agendas? Is there a party line that scientist/academics have to tow in order to be accepted and respected members of the scientific establishment?

I have not really hobnobbed with scientists to know the answer.

The beauty of science is that empirical evidence is required in order to accept anything as scientific fact. But is that really the case?

Take for example one of the most famous events in scientific history. In 1919 a British expedition in West Africa led by Sir Arthur Eddington was checking for that very empirical evidence necessary to prove or disprove Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein came through with flying colors, his theory was proved and within a week or so he became the most famous scientist in the world.

How amazing that according to Stephen Hawking in page 33 in his famous “A Brief History of Time”, he claims that “later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, “OR A CASE OF KNOWING THE RESULT THEY WANTED TO GET, NOT AN UNCOMMON OCCURRENCE IN SCIENCE.”

[strangely enough, in Wikipedia on this subject it would seem like the above claim is inaccurate. (they do NOT mention that Stephen Hawking claims such.)

Lawrence Summers losing his presidency of Harvard due to a non PC statement regarding women’s aptitude for Science or Math, should show us the power of Establishment and the swift punishment meted out for not following its precepts.

Talking of towing party lines reminds me of one sad chapter in the story of the highest court in our land, the US Supreme Court,( along with the Supreme court of the State of Florida). A judicial question about “hanging or pregnant chads” that was totally unrelated to any ideological positions vis-a-vis the Republican or Democratic platform, was clearly decided based on these very positions. ALL Republican judges happened to accept one count of the Florida votes, the count that would make the Republican candidate win, and ALL Democrat judges accepted the count that would make the Democrat win. How fortuitous. The blind lady of Justice has very good eyesight after all. Evolution anyone?

Yet all the above not withstanding we cannot simply disregard scientific knowledge.

What gives?

The question posed in my previous comment is relevant to any given field of knowledge, science, medicine, philosophy, etc. How can non-specialists have an opinion on anything?

Here is how. IF the proposed statement can be checked, examined in the lab, tested in your basement, or at least easily understood after reading about the testing and results by the scientist, by you, than its easy to accept as true.
(As a matter of fact, any theory in science continues standing, and will eventually be accepted as true, by the virtues fact that its easy to prove it wrong and yet can’t. The theory of gravity can be as easy to disprove as you showing us that you throw up a ball and it does not come down. That easy.)

Science never tells you ‘rebbi horowits has the answers’ ‘just talk to my rosh yeshivah’ or ‘the rambam deals with this question already’. Science is an open field of possibilities, open to the public, to you, to me, to understand if we only wish to, to read about, to take part in, and to discover new ideas ourselves.

If you come up with an easier counterweight balance system than the pullies now used, that will be new and better science and everyone will accept it. Except the pulley manufacturers maybe (is why medicine has biased fields).
If you disagree with yakov kamenetzki, you are a kofer.

Science is true, because science is made by me and you. Its not a predetermined outcome “this book is true now make reality fit” idea.

Its based on observations, predictions followed by tests, made by humans like you and me. No one is hiding anything. If you wanna know how we figured out that the DNA is a double helix structure, all you gotta do is read about how they did it, and then do it yourself. No one is asking you to trust them, no one is telling you that you havto believe, and no one is forcing you to live your life accordingly.

Of course you won’t test every single thing out there, but that is your own human technical problem. You could if u want to. The exact way it was done is described in the science paper s/he wrote about her/his discovery. And so you might have to rely on experts in a field. But you rely on your doctors prescription for a supplement, your plumbers assertion about which pipes should be changed, and your mechanics evaluation of how much it will cost you. Its ok, as long as you know that you can ask a second opinion, you can rely on your own opinion, and no one is asking you to blindly follow them. You know you can learn plumbing on your own.

“Claiming to know something to be true without any way to prove or disprove it does violence to our intelligence and makes a mockery of our logical faculties, and I will simply laugh upon hearing it, and sometimes even shake my head in mild disbelief at the incredible depth of human folly. And so should you.” -baal devorim in his article titled ‘uncommon sense’ here on unpious. Check it out btw. Nicely written over there.

>How amazing that according to Stephen Hawking in page 33…

Congrats on making it to page 36/200 in the world’s most unread bestseller!

The thing is it is not amazing at all, we all know of and acknowledge inconsistencies, and in fact actively seek them out because we revel in human fallibility.

We don’t simply say things like “talmid toeh” like the torah world does, e.g. for that howler committed by the Mahral who apparently didn’t say the akeidah each morning with kavanah, but who in his own oh so very arrogant style of “what I say is absolute truth” then goes on to write a lengthy differentiation between Bilam and Avrohom and Ito vs Imo, based upon his misquotation of two pesukim.

Humans are flawed of course, Greogor Mendel’s pea plant experiment was too perfect and close to be true, to the 3:1 ratio for F2’s. Genetic screening still works though and YOU use, YOU trust it, YOU have an opinion, because YOU test it and it works. Antibiotics still work, most antibiotics are discovered in labs through looking at differences between bacteria and eukarya to find vulnerable points for bacteria alone. (Incidentally, fungal infections are extremely difficult to treat because they are close to us on the evolutionary tree, we cannot target them without suffering the same ill effects ourselves).

The keyboard you use works, even if there probably is not a single human on this planet who knows the exact function and makeup of every component. Isn’t that just freakin awesome?

We don’t have absolute truth, no one does. But we acknowledge that and strive towards it. Humble science modifies its practices according the best science available, in contrast to the retention of laws such as niddah and treifos both based upon ancient biology, and those get compounded upon every few decades or so.

> Congrats on making it to page 36/200 in the world’s most unread bestseller!

Haha!

And once I saw how fickle empirical evidence is, I promptly shut the book.

OR in an alternate universe, I read on until I got sucked into a wormhole which looped me right back to the space warp where gravity was bending light.

BTW, I hope he figured out how to kill his grandfmother without compromising his existence. Otherwise who would be the purported Einstein Be’doreinu?

Jason and Shauly,

My above question was not about Judaism or Religion in general. How is my questions about ascertaining knowledge related to Rabbi Horowitz or the Mharal? Yes, I was going to question the “irrefutable truth” of the mechanism of Evolution, but why compare it to anything else? I am not pitting Judaism against Evolution.

I sometimes see these two subjects as complete different realms.
Science is all about knowledge that is why its truth needs to be explored relentlessly. Judaism can be seen as being all about living life lovingly, as Hillel, R’ Akiva, and the Besh’t were want to say. By lovingly I mean loving all of reality (or Reality).. and love, as the saying goes, is blind.

If we can see Religion as a means to achieve this goal we wouldn’t really need to be hung up on what is true or not. The question about any Religion should be more about how it does or doesn’t help us reach this goal and less about if the stories it penned at one point are accurate or not. It shouldn’t matter if they were meant to be read as a strict historical account in the modern sense of the term, or more like traditional storytelling where facts were never of great importance.

You might argue that however great the values are, by manifesting it in archaic notions it killed it for you. Your passion for truth is an all consuming fire expunging anything bordering on falsehood. How about trying on these truths for size.

The accepted truth today is that there’s really no free will. Yet you live your life completely and totally as if there is free will. You will be raving mad at a good friend who betrays you miserably, etc. etc.

Or are you ready to forgo all possessions as John Lennon (a multi-millionaire) sung so passionately? It sure seems more honest than greedy capitalism.

How about being skeptical about any existence other than yourself, Cogito ergo sum? Or as Nietzsche points out that even the “I” in that statement of “I think therefore I am” is questionable. Even our very own individuality seems to up for grabs. (actually, I happen to aspire to this last one.)

Very many of us, in a truthful moment will admit that we really don’t give a hoot about anyone other than ourselves. Our being polite, civilized, our caring and sharing would seemingly be yet another farce. A farce, mind you, in which we live every moment of our life.

Gosh, I would be afraid to live with people who go only by what they truthfully are convinced. Not according to the lip service or the farcical acts they do due to society, but according to their true feelings about anyone other than themselves.

Love may be blind, but truth, man, it’s scary.

>OR in an alternate universe, I read on until I got sucked into a wormhole which looped me right back to the space warp where gravity was bending light.

OK OK, lol.

So now you are not pitting religion against evolution, sense against emotions, blind faith against empirical evidence; you are just petitioning for fairy tale telling to take a prominent place in our lives, because it has nice moral lessons.

Well I grew up. Maybe sadly so according to you, but I still cannot convince myself to believe in an imaginary teddy bear because of its cozy drowsing powers.

” Judaism can be seen as being all about living life lovingly”. It can also be seen as a stifling close minded community centered life filled with nonsensical rituals, forced down your throat.
If you are looking for morals outside of you own logic, I have another few thousand cults and such for you to turn to. Hell you can even make your own up based on the beautiful story of goldy lox and the 3 bears. Not just judaism. Definitely not an ultra orthodox version where individualism, creativity, questioning, opinions, and education, are strongly discouraged.

I’m not arguing that “however great the values are, by manifesting it in archaic notions its killing it for (me)” although that is good enough a reason, I’m arguing that its time to grow up and leave the cozy blanky you grew up with, behind. Not only are your supposed views of how religion is, totally skewed, but the way it actually unfolds is, they kill each other over different versions of the fairy tales, they seriously believe in those fairy tales, they very much believe that you and me should be forced to believe it too, and want us to give up our logic and freedoms for it.

I don’t think the response “whatever” couldve been used in any better context.

Although, I do think it was a nice ending to all the debating about science. You know. Explaining how you anyhow believe, regardless, because religion is a warm and cozy idea for you personally. Its a pleasant feel-good ending.

Thanx all of you for taking part. Was invigorating. T’least at the beginning. Would love to meet ya’ll one day.

To be sure, it might be that if we delve deep enough into our psyche we may actually come to realize the lie of our egoistical existence, and rather than the self-centered story of ourselves (and our surroundings) which we are continuously creating in our mind, then craving, then hurting for, we will allow ourselves to see reality as what it is and what it will be.

Heck we might even lose the sharp edge of our sense of individual existence. For what is our “I” if not the very idiosyncratic database of reality that we create for ourselves.

Think if someone will hypothetically wipe out all our learned, and genetically programmed, perceptions and responses, and put in someone else’s entire database of said perceptions and responses, didn’t we then completely obliterate our previous individuality? Are we not then simply that other person?

If we really go ahead and realize that this whole database is simply one subjective way of looking and responding to things, we are opening ourselves up to experience reality from different angles (the vantage points of ‘others’) and in its ultimate form, those other’s database become part of (my) reality. So you see where the “I” might lose its edge.

We might then stop being imprisoned in that boring tiny cell called “I”, and start experiencing life every day afresh from new and different angles. The pain of things not going according to the (self centered or simply misinformed) story we told ourselves will lose its sharpness inasmuch as we have not married ourselves to those stories in the first place.

Here’s a toast to that day when self and others will lose its sharpness and we will love each other as we love ourselves.

But the above is a whole other point of view which starts sounding like some mystical aspect of unity with all, and can lead dangerously close to the essence of most religions, God forbid. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to propose that, not here anyway.

P.S. How about we at least throw away our egos just for the purpose of this conversations here. I can sincerely say that I will carefully listen to what anyone says here. Please extend that courtesy to me too.

> Well I grew up. Maybe sadly so according to you, but I still cannot convince myself to believe in an imaginary teddy bear because of its cozy drowsing powers.

Sure, I figured you’d say that and that’s why I wrote;
“You might argue that however great the values are, by manifesting it in archaic notions it killed it for you. Your passion for truth is an all consuming fire expunging anything bordering on falsehood. How about trying on these truths for size..

So how are we doing with the truths I asked you to try on?

Shauly, I do believe what you wrote about your altruism, but you got some ’splainin to do. I will need you to stop doing all that if you can’t prove to yourself the “truth” in altruism. Warning; it might a couple of lifetimes just reading all the arguments on that matter, and that is even before you get started on weighing who is right.

> Not only are your supposed views of how religion is, totally skewed, but the way it actually unfolds is, they kill each other over different versions of the fairy tales, they seriously believe in those fairy tales, they very much believe that you and me should be forced to believe it too, and want us to give up our logic and freedoms for it

As I said, Judaism “can be seen” as…..

I do not put a claim on how it is done right now by many, I’m talking about how we can live it. Yes unfortunatley great ideas and ideals always get corrupted in translation.

Sure, the more truth to an idea the more passion it can garner, the more chance it can have to become a source of divisveness and bloodshed.

But that doesn’t take away the beauty of its message.

>The accepted truth today is that there’s really no free will. Yet you live your life completely and totally as if there is free will. You will be raving mad at a good friend who betrays you miserably, etc. etc.

Well that is a gross oversimplification, when that good friend betrays another we do tend to apologise for that friend, when that good friend ends up in the gutter we almost always sympathise. I believe we mostly live as if we believe that there is NO free will. We always apologise for ourselves.

>Very many of us, in a truthful moment will admit that we really don’t give a hoot about anyone other than ourselves. Our being polite, civilized, our caring and sharing would seemingly be yet another farce. A farce, mind you, in which we live every moment of our life.

Look up “Psychological egoism”.

You write;

“well I grew up”. Sure you did, so let your view of religion grow up too.
Will you forever be angry at your Nursery teacher who told you that the glass is crying because you broke it?

If some people stay with that version of reality that shouldn’t make us do the same.

>Look up physchological egoism

This issue is one of most important issues in philosophy. Historically it has been extremely difficult to make a case for honest altruism.

But that was not my point. I’m just saying that most of our day to day politeness are a farce. We can hear about a horrendous Tsunami killing hundreds, yet be more sorry about our shirt that just go coffee all over it.

>Well that is a gross oversimplification, when that good friend betrays another we do tend to apologise for that friend.

And my point was and still is, that “You will be raving mad at a good friend who betrays you miserably, etc. etc.

Come on man, how is this point not valid due to me not explaining all the different scenarios where we do apply our belief in determinism? Are you really addressing the issue?

Look up cognitive dissonance

> Definitely not an ultra orthodox version where individualism, creativity, questioning, opinions, and education, are strongly discouraged.

May be.

Without a doubt there’s a lot of stiflin’ going on, and that can be painful as hell. But, losing family, community, and friends is no picnic either.

I’ll admit that I wouldn’t dare tell someone what to do, but it’s food for thought.

> To be sure..
Empathy is good.
When empathizing I’m not obsessed with myself.
Non-Attachment is an antidote for loss.
My knowledge is subjective.
what else are you saying?

Why is it vital for you to prove that the I is vanishing?
Can I vanish even if i’m still here?
How does empathy alleviate boredom?
Is there no objective knowledge?
How is empathy mystical? religious? or Godly?

>The beauty of its message

2000 years of blinding restrictions.
with rulings on how to fart by davening.
how to kill someone for carrying a tissue.
how to kill a tribe for a sin of their mythical grandfathers
what beauty?
what message?

>Look up cognitive dissonance
Boring and overused matey,

I thought we lived as if there was no free will at the age of 14, when I had never heard of the debate. We have no free will in getting angry when we feel violated too. We are more rational about this in most other instances living as if there is no free will.

Succinctly put “I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.” Albert E.

Leib Davidson writes: “I’ll admit that I wouldn’t dare tell someone what to do…”
WOW! You do realize that this attitude is most DEFINITELY NOT an Orthodox Jewish one. It sounds much closer to Reform, to be honest. Jews are not at all absolved of the requirement to tell others EXACTLY what to do continuously in ANY case where other individual Jews are knowingly doing otherwise (even where one knows they will not listen – up to the point where they hit you or curse you).
Please see the Shulchan Aruch – Orach Chaim – Siman: Taf Reish Ches (608) – Hilchos Yom Hakippurim – seif 1 (available here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14166&st=&pgnum=148 and http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14166&st=&pgnum=149)
See the clear psak from the Chofetz Chaim in seif koton ches – “and the same applies to any mayzid [not only aveirahs explicit in the Torah] where the person knowingly transgresses”. See also seif koton yud alef where the Mishneh Brurah brings a “Yesh Omrim” that it is enough to keep admonishing the sinner till the point where he scolds you.

You can spend a lifetime dunking your head in Richard Dawkins
pseudo-intellectual fantasizing to assuage your wounds. I know it
makes you feel better and its easier than sticking your head in the
gemara and actually humbling yourself. I know it allows you free
access to the darkest parts of your personality and desires that the
Torah would curtail.

I know all your “arguments” sound very intelligent until you actually
open your eyes to the world around you and think.

At the end of the day once you leave your anger and pain at your
family and whomever else wronged you in the past and then simply close your eyes for 20 seconds and think about your BRAIN, Richard Dawkins will then appear to be the dumbest man in the universe and your precious neshama will long to come home. But it takes guts. It will embarrass you in front of your parents and friends. It won’t be
painless. Its your choice.

Until then, I hope this cold mechanical, unfeeling, unloving universe
which you think does not show signs of a loving Creator will treat you well. Sounds rather depressing having no point to life and not being any greater than the bacteria growing in my fridge.

As Bob Dylan once aptly put it, “You’ve got to serve somebody, it may
be the devil or may be the Lord but you gotta serve somebody…”

What/whom are you serving?

Lieb,
Have you by chance been reprogramed with all of John Lennin’s data base??? Or is just with the Can you imagine??

Mr Nobody,

You yourself have now done the job like it nobody’s business, (which it isn’t)

I somehow think that Ve’Ohavto Le’reacho Komochah is a prerequiste to Hocheach Tocheach Es Amisecho. Once I’m done with that, I might step up to the plate. Although it might not be neccesary anymore.

Jason and Shauly,

I would like you to recall that in my very first paragraph about evolution I clearly stated that my questions about Evolution are related solely to the Mechanism of Evolution (random mutations, fight for survival…).

You guys were all up in arms how my questions are totaly beyond the pale, blah blah. All I needed to do was read one or two books and I will be enlightened forever.

How strange to see that Daniel Dennett, a major proponent and popularizer for all things evolution, almost to the level of Richard Dawkins, states the following;

“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant- inexcusably ignorant. Doubts about the power of Darwin’s idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process ARE STILL INTELLECTUALY RESPECTABLE, however, althought the burden of proof for such skepticism has beome immense, as we shall see.

“One of the goals of this book is to explain why the idea of natural selection APPEARS to be the clear winner. even while there are unresolved controversies abou thow it can handle some phenomena”

No claims that mechanism of evolution is “irrefutable” (I’m assuming that you were addressing my issue when you were claiming irrefutability, Jason).

No comparing it to flat earth societies.

Doubting that natural selection is the answer, is intellectually respectable, says Dennett.

It “APPEARS” to be the clear winner. not irrefutably so, he claims.

Did you hear of Stuart Kaufman with his ideas on Self Organizing Complexity? He is very much convinced that without his new theory of “order for free”, we can NOT understand how things evolved just by natural selection.

Shauly, I can lend you his book and you’ll see on the back cover how Stephen J Gould claims that this new theory would be the missing piece to get “a satisfactory theory of lifes order”. Yup, natural selection just isn’t satisfactory to Stephen J Gould. He is in need of the theory of self organization, which by all acounts is far from established.

In the ‘Dover’ court case, where the Dover School Board was being sued for teaching Intelligent Design, the plaintiff brought an expert witness to prove how ID is wrong and Evolution is the only theory to be taught in schools.

“Robert Muise, one of the attorneys representing the school district, cross-examined Dr. Padian. Muise asked about Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium. Gould thought that evolution could be better described as taking place in fits and starts. Padian indicated that he thought Gould offered this theory as a possible explanation for gaps in the fossil record.

Muise then asked: “Is natural selection responsible for punctuated equilibrium?”

“That’s a great question,” responded Dr. Padian. He then went on to state that while ‘GOULD’S THEORY OF PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM MAY RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE IDEA OF COMMON DESCENT.”

Please look up how I wrote way back that Punctuated Equilibrium is making it very difficult for me to understand the Mechanism of Evolution.

I think that you both owe me/us some clarification on the above matter.

Some biologistst have some doubts on some parts of Evolutionary Theory.
A nice snapshot of honest science.
Don’t run to Shull just yet.

Ok. I donno why I didn’t get the email until now, but here is the explanation I “owe” you.

Let’s imagine we are in the court room trying to establish the truth, beyond reasonable doubt, about mr butcher killing his wife.

The butchers knife was found on the scene with her blood and his fingerprints, he has made remarks to multiple witnesses the day before about how he wants to kill his wife, he called the police to the scene and she was freshly killed, still in bed. Pretty obvious.

The prosecutors now say to the jury, that they have found substantial additional evidence. To add insult to injury, there were camera’s in the house. So, they show the footage, and sure enough, you see the angry butcher in the kitchen picking up the knife with shaky hands, and you see him leave the kitchen. Next camera, from the hallway, shows him exiting the kitchen and walking towards the dining room. A few minutes later, he is out of the dining room with some towels in hand plus knife, running to the bedroom.

If you are on that jury, would you jump up and say that there are gaps in the videos, we donno what he did in the dining room and we donno what he did with the knife and towels in the bedroom, so its no proof that he didn’t do it? As a matter of fact, now the prosecutors destroyed their own case!? Cause that’s how you sound here.

To recap the quote you brought down from Daniel Dennett “anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant- inexcusably ignorant.”

Do we know EVERYTHING about nature yet? Do we know EVERYTHING that has happened in the past yet? No and no. We are not stupid though. We went to the moon and we built satellites. We figured out the DNA codes and we know how to measure element clocks. -so we don’t know exactly every process that is involved. Yet.

If that was your point from the beginning, it was in bad taste on a wrong site. Here, when you doubt evolution, especially when you make it sound like its a stupid theory that has “holes”, it means you are probably davening 3 times a day instead. This just happens to be the site we are on.
And the answer to any questions on evolution is: yes it makes sense, yes its proven from multiple angels, yes life as we know it wouldn’t make sense without it, yes everyone in science (scratch that. Anyone who ever went to visit a museum of natural history, or has ever taken a biology class) agrees that evolution has happened.
-And most importantly, especially here, even IF for some odd reason you believe and use everything else science has taught us but you don’t agree to the theory of evolution, you STILL CANNOT MAKE UP A GOD INSTEAD. If you donno how you came here and you refuse to find out, closing your eyes and making up a non existing fairy tale involving angels and supermans, is utterly stupid. When you donno an answer, the answer IS: I DON’T KNOW. Yet.

E,
You write, “a nice snapshot of honest science”

If you allow for the academicians here to pose too, your picture might blur a bit.

“Don’t run to shull just yet”

Please be kind enough to read the context of my comments before responding.
I made it abundantly clear from the get go that proving or disproving evolution doesn’t affect my belief in God one iota.

I will try to respond to your previous questions too.

Best,
Leib

Shauly,

I’m sure you are the most wonderful person in the world. But I have to say that I mammesh don’t understand you.
Are you using the words that I quoted from Dennett without even reading the whole paragraph? Didn’t you see how he states that it is intellectually respectable to doubt the mechanism of evolution. Why are you quoting only the first half where he talks about the historical fact that the world developed from less complex to more complex? You surely realize the distinction he makes between the two. I have been harping on this distinction since my very first sentence on this matter.

There’s a complete disconnect between my point and your response.

The same goes to your point about making up fairy tales. I have said right from the start that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT FROM MY VIEWS ON GOD REGARDLESS OF ITS TRIUMPH OR FAILURE. Why are you constantly connecting the two? It seems that the remote possibility of not utterly disproving Gods existence gives you the willies. You truly fear God.

Suffice it to say that the God I’m talking about is not a Bogi-Monster. No fire and brimstone there, only goodness and love.

But I’m not here to prove that to you or to anyone here. I just want to have some nice, even lively, discussions, listen to other peoples viewpoints, and maybe change some of my own.

And, I’m enjoying it while it lasts.

Shabbat Shalom

>It seems that the remote possibility of not utterly disproving Gods existence gives you the willies.

Sorry but I cant feel the respect, love and goodness. Neither yours nor God’s. Perhaps God too needs to use smilies, to soften his profound and judgemental judgement.

I don’t know whether Dawkins, Gould or Lynn Margolis is right, and they can’t all be, or perhaps they can. They all support Darwinian evolution and common descent though and that is what is irrefutable.

What I do know though is that the religion I was raised with has been disproven. Any other faith you offer up such as the one you do, must shoulder the burden of proof.

You can start with archaeological history.

>Sorry but I cant feel respect, love and goodness…….. profound and judgemental judgement….

Pot, Kettle, Black.

> I don’t know whether Dawkins, Gould or Lynn Margolis is right.

Or, for some additional name dropping, Noam Chomsky in his positive review on ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’.

>They all support Darwinian evolution and common descent though and that is what is irrefutable.

Did you perchance read how I happened to mention that common descent is NOT MY ISSSUE. The MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION, i.e. natural selection etc. is what I am not so convinced. I only mentioned it like 20 times, starting from the very first paragraph i wrote about evolution here.

When you kept on responding to me saying that “evolution is irrefutable”, where you consistently completely disregarding the very clear distinction I made all along??

>Any other faith you offer up such as the one you do, must shoulder the burden of proof.

For your convenience I’ll paste what I wrote previously,

“Science is all about knowledge, and that is why its truth needs to be explored relentlessly. Judaism can be seen as being all about living life lovingly, as Hillel, R’ Akiva, and the Besh’t were want to say. By lovingly I mean loving all of reality (or Reality).. and love, as the saying goes, is blind.

If we can see Religion as a means to achieve this goal we wouldn’t really need to be hung up on what is true or not. The question about any Religion should be more about how it does or doesn’t help us reach this goal and less about if the stories it penned at one point are accurate or not.”

“”"”It shouldn’t matter if they were meant to be read as a strict historical account in the modern sense of the term, or more like traditional storytelling where facts were never of great importance.”"”"”"

But more importantly, I’m not about to offer up any other faith, that would be way above my pay-grade.

For the record, I will reiterate that I find you and Shauly extremely knowledgable and erudite, I respect you guys an awful lot for that. Especially knowing (presumably) where you guys are coming from.

With Love and Respect,
Leib

You don’t get it. Every time Saul or I try and talk to you civilly, you have to remind us how preachy and judgemental you can be, in perfect conformity to your stereotype.

I made it clear to you initially that it is not exactly clear what you do and do not accept in evolution.. I did respond assuming you accepted that complex life forms are later than simple ones. But, you later used irreducible complexity, and considered DNA evidence as an argument for common descent. I don’t know what it is you do believe. You were pretty inconsistent here. I can’t know if you did accept common descent specifically. Perhaps some other form of speciation. You know, such as: the midrash, yahweh created and destroyed several worlds before settling on this one, and that accounts for the fossil record.

>we wouldn’t really need to be hung up on what is true or not.

To me this seems like a cheap and easy way of conforming to social norms and expectations when you know full well they are hogwash. I do that too, but I know they are hogwash.

>Or, for some additional name dropping,

Just listen to yourself here. I know you are not a biologist, but Lynn Margolis (Endosymbiosis which was a lot later shown as true by mtDNA) is by far the most important person in this list. You simply cannot be a biologist and not know of her, fair, you do not, but drop the “know it all” charade, and adopt a “mikol melamdei hiskalty” attitude.

OK, so what do we have here,

I don’t get it

I am preachy

I am judgmental

In perfect conformity to my stereotype

I should just listen to myself (and presumably see the folly of my words)

I am projecting a know-it-all charade

I should drop that charade

I should be Mekayem, Mikol Melamdey Hiskalti.

All the above non-preachy civil talk is just from your last two responses.

Your attacks on me have never stopped. I have been stupid enough to actually apologize for some far fetched slight you felt when I was trying to show Shauly the context of a certain statement I made. You have never even found it important to apologize for your horrible vicious attacks that have not stopped. (they have become less vicious, I agree)

With all that, I have consistently told you that I respect you for your knowledge and talent. I have told you that I learned a lot from this discussion and I thank you for that.

But that all is not good enough. You are all flustered for some perceived judgmental statement I supposedly made when I humorously tell Shauly that “It seems that the remote possibility of not utterly disproving Gods existence gives you the willies. You truly fear God. “ What the hell are you talking about? How is this being judgmental?

This is beyond ridiculous.

I will say this here. I do NOT talk down to anyone. I truly honestly believe that every single person has something to offer in an honest sincere conversation, especially educated people like you and Shauly. I truly honestly admire you (and Shauly) for the knowledge you possess.

Please realize that when one is being attacked etc. He can either respond in kind or he can say something like “hey, that’s not nice, why are you doing this to me”. This is not because he’s trying to preach, he’s just trying to normalize the situation without responding with attacks.

With my “name dropping” comment, I was referring to myself too. A discussion that ends up being about how many experts in a given field are of opinion X is a ‘name dropping’ game. To me it loses the luster of a good intellectual discussion.

While I’m no scientist I’d have to correct you on Lynn Margulis. I have read about her and her arguments many many years ago. (can I be so audacious and say very possibly before you did.). But that is neither here nor there, name dropping of important people is still name dropping.

You are NOT talking down to me. You are NOT talking to me at all.
Please answer my questions.

>But, you later used irreducible complexity,

Rightfully so. Irreducible complexity is problematic for the ’survival of the fittest +natural selection’ theory.
A complex structure where all elements are needed for it to function, doesn’t flow well with the gradual infinitesimal changes natural selection calls for. We would have to appeal to luck to have all these components be a survival advantage of their own accord and only then it merged into one wholly new survival advantage. The hypothetical advantage for every single step in this irreducible complex structure has no bearing to the ultimate outcome. It is already more probable when we do not attribute survival advantages to every component.

>and considered DNA evidence as an argument for common descent.

NO, you said that it’s irrefutable. I asked you to explain it. I responded to your explanation as follows:

start quote “Even if it [i.e. your DNA argument] would somehow prove that there was an evolutionary process from less complex to more, it would have no bearing on the theory (or fact) of the mechanism of evolution.
We would still need to answer my questions on the mechanism.
I noted right in the beginning that my question is not if there was an evolutionary process from the less complex to the more complex. I am befuddled with the theory that explains the mechanism of it.” end quote.

But Mr. E is right, I should talk about the issue at hand. Will do.

Lots of people do in fact reject common descent because of your questions. So forgive me for assuming that you did too given the lack of clarity in your words regarding evolution. I wasn’t the only one. All you had to do was say and I told you from the off that it was unclear what it is you hold.

Irreducible complexity is nonsense. Intermediate forms such as humans and everything else have both intermediate and vestigial components, some are still functional others not.

Keep at it, with an open mind. Don’t say things like natural selection can’t work, or “rest assured humans are irr. complex”. Perhaps not so even if you can’t fathom it at this point in time with the amount of information you have.

> lack of clarity in my words……All you had to do was say…..

Umm… sure…yeah…. whatever. the first 20 times don’t count, huh?

>Irreducible complexity is NONSENSE.

So beautifully bombastic (and open-minded?)

>Intermediate forms such as humans……

and your point…

>Keep at it with an open mind.

Couldn’t agree more,

I should always realize that there’s nothing wrong with not knowing everything.
I wouldn’t need to obfuscate or fib simply to hide some mistake(s?).
I definitely should always listen and learn rather than attack someone for saying something different than me.
Not use bombastic powerful statements that later blow up in my face.
Then I wouldn’t need to quote someone out of context to prove the closed mindedness of that party, disregarding his continuous refrain that he has questions on the issue, he is befuddled and would like to hear answers and is ready to change his views etc.

As you mentioned 2 or 3 times that you hope I learned something from this discussion so that I can make a better educated conclusion on this issue, with an open mind of course, as you so sagely guided me. I will say again that I have learned a lot from discussing this issue with an open minded scientist of your caliber.

Yup I will take to heart what you so eloquently preached that I should “stop the know-it-all-charade and adopt a Mikol Melamday Hiskalti attitude”

>obfuscate or fib simply to hide some mistake(s?).
I reject your accusations. I still believe that you *did* question common descent and also natural selection. It seems odd and only to you, but I was not the only one.

“Rest assured that this very intermediate form is full of irreducible complex elements” {hint}NONSENSE.{/hint}

P.S. am I still Shauly?

In my very first comment in this thread (April 13), in my very first mention of Evolution I write the following;

A quick note on Evolution. THE FACT THAT THING EVOLVED FROM LESS COMPLEX TO MORE COMPLEX IN THE COURSE OF BILLIONS OF YEARS IS PRETTY MUCH PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. The mechanism to explain that thru random mutation coupled with survival of the fittest, simply has too many unknown variables to make it into a honest scientific or evern philosophicaly viable theory. How many different possibilities are there and what are the chances. I do not see how this is being addressed, or how it is even possible to be addressed.

I wrote that it’s “pretty much proven beyond reasonable doubt”, do you know any clearer language to use?

Some additional writings
April 18:
“Even if it would somehow prove that there was an evolutionary process from less complex to more, it would have no bearing on the theory (or fact) of the mechanism of evolution.
We would still need to answer my questions on the mechanism.
I NOTED RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING THAT MY QUESTION IS NOT IF THERE WAS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS FROM THE LESS COMPLEX TO THE MORE COMPLEX. I am befuddled with the theory that explains the mechanism of it.

April 21 I wrote:

“Interestingly enough, the ‘Occam’s razor’ issue which should really have no connection to our main issue (REMEMBER I AGREED, RIGHT IN MY FIRST SENTENCE ON EVOLUTION, THAT THE WORLD AND ALL ITS ORGANISMS EVOLVED FROM LESS COMPLEX TO MORE COMPLEX), actually is very much related to one of my MAIN contentions with evolution. (Occam’s razor in slow motion,huh?)”

I reiterated this position constantly, I’m pasting only the first few here. But really the first paragraph should more than suffice.

Yet here we are a month later and you do not know what my position is.

It is either that you are intentionally misreading my writings or you simply cannot read (atrocious) English.

April 18 seemed to me at the time to be k’yehuda ve’od likroh. You also said repeatedly that your question are on *evolution*, using arguments that do indeed question common descent.

Look, heredity has always been genetic, we know that. It is not enough for something to adapt, even epigenetically in the vast majority of cases with a few exceptions, for that trait to pass on to progeny, it must be part of the organisms genotype.

So, mutation rate/time does to my mind questions evolution. Most creationist think so too, not that I particularly like their company. The alternative is to say, we see evolution occurred and so therefore there is a probability number by which it can occur over time, and occur it did just like my lotto analogy.

Same goes for irreducible complexity. If common descent occurred, there will have been intermediates with dysfunctional components therefore it could not have occurred.

Regarding your orginal statement I did make it clear right away that it was unclear what it is you are saying. Was it midrashic “evolution” without common descent? But I did respond assuming that it was in fact natural selection and I was the only one to do so. Yet later you seemed to me to be talking about “questions on evolution” with what I do consider to be questions on evolution.

“The basic theory of *evolution* and my basic questions on that theory are simple.”

I said “The DNA evidence for *evolution* is overwhelming and irrefutable,” you said “powerful statement. Care to give me some data besides just giving a very reassuring powerful statement? I’d also like to know if you mean *evolution* with new complex beneficial structures.

“My point was not in any way a main argument in my gripes on evolution it was just pointing out how mutations should become exponentially more harmful as the complexity rises. A really inconsequential point. But a point nevertheless.”

“I will think about your argument of redundancy” why? redundancy only proves common descent, not natural selection.

“I’m simply asking questions on the theory of Evolution….This point goes for Baal Devorim’s comment too” why? his comment only pertains to common descent not NS.

You kept on saying that you had “main arguments” and non-main arguments, perhaps common descent was a non-main argument, but it seemed to me, to BD and to brother Shauly to be an argument you make nonetheless.

I guess we are all frauds, cheats, obfuscators, fibbers or just dirty rats and cats. Alternatively perhaps I am Shauly, BD and me, now that certainly was a “main argument”.

The moral of the story here is that never argue in text with someone who is lax with their choice of words, a reoccurring theme here but all the more pertinent with hindsight.

@lieb, your questioning, especially in comebacks, WERE really hard to understand, let alone clarify your exact positions on matters.
You’ve said that you agree to the fact of everything becoming more complex, ad to the basic ideas and tenements of evolution, and then went firing away on anything we said, in the name of your “issue with complexity”.
If you wouldve stuck to your guns, the debate wouldve stayed in that area, wouldn’t it?
And didn’t we already answer the question on complexity a long time ago? Or is it just me? How about this, now, for the very first or 20th time, STATE YOUR QUESTION, clearly and very defined, as a matter of fact, rather make it long and comprehensible if that’s what it takes, and let us try to answer you.

>Look, heredity has always been genetic, we know that. It is not enough for something to adapt, even epigenetically in the vast majority of cases with a few exceptions, for that trait to pass on to progeny, it must be part of the organisms genotype.
So, mutation rate/time does to my mind questions evolution.

How so? We see a fact that things gradually became more complex but we don’t have a good theory that resolves the mutation rate/time issue, simple.

>The alternative is to say, we see evolution occurred and so therefore there is a probability number by which it can occur over time, and occur it did just like my lotto analogy.

I don’t get you here. I think you’re saying that we just have to accept the theory of natural selection etc. because we are obviously here to tell the story. The question is who says that this is the correct theory? We can simply say we don’t yet have an explanation for the phenomena of progression from less complex to more complex.

>Same goes for irreducible complexity. If common descent occurred, there will have been intermediates with dysfunctional components therefore it could not have occurred.

Look, ‘less complex to more complex’ is a fact, live with it. Anything we discuss or theorize about it is simply questioning the explanations, not the brute facts. Please note that I don’t really understand how intermediate dysfunctional components is relevant to the ‘irreducible complexity’ question.

>Regarding your orginal statement I did make it clear right away that it was unclear what it is you are saying. Was it midrashic “evolution” without common descent?

What you have to realize is that I WAS NOT PROPOSING AN ALTERNATIVE WHATSOEVER. I told you this many times. I simply said that I have some questions on the the theoretical aspect of evolution.

>Yet later you seemed to me to be talking about “questions on evolution” with what I do consider to be questions on evolution.

Saying “questions on evolution” does not imply on which aspect of it I refer to. By reading to the question proper one should be able to see what the question is and to which aspect of “evolution” I’m referring to.

Yet I understand that it is helpful to clarify as much as possible I therefore gave a very clear disclaimer at the start, and then repeated it many times as to what aspect I’m referring to. I shouldn’t have to constantly repeat that when I’m questioning the the theory of evolution I mean the theoretical explanation of how it went down.

To the best of my recollection, (I don’t have the energy to rethink all my points now),my redundancy issue was simply in the context of your discussion about DNA proving ‘less complex to more complex’.

Which although I made clear then that it doesn’t answer my questions at all, I questioned you as to why you even see it as a proof to anything. I claimed that Occam’s razor would divine sameness to all DNA for same organisms, but possibly not to its redundancy.

[As I said then, I'm not sure about this. Do we really know if redundancy is completely a waste? Is DNA a master program where it can instruct all living organisms, and maybe even recode itself during meiosis thru some master switches being turned on and off? I think there is talk about gene sequences interacting with other sequences in as of yet unexplored ways. DISCLAIMER; I'm really unclear with the above response to redundancy, that is why I said that I need to think/research more about redundancy.]

If you and Baal Devorims assumption would be right that I’m trying to prove ID, then his comment would be valid. I therefore explained again that this is not what my discussion is about.

I never said Shauly is a fraud or a fibber. I did say that it seemed like he didn’t really have the energy to actually read thru my comments which is very evident from his responses to me. Heck, he said so himself.

And now to your non-preachy moral of the story.
>The moral of the story here is that never argue in text with someone who is lax with their choice of words, a reoccurring theme here but all the more pertinent with hindsight.

I have a few choice words that I would like to use here. But I’ll break your rule JUST THIS ONCE, and I’ll be lax about them.

>Do we really know if redundancy is completely a waste?
Depends which type of redundency. around 8% of our genome is retrovirus sequences. Then there are many sequences with no stop or start codons or with no DNA polymerase primer, or some even with RNA primer sequences and so in the case of a number of these we know they are ancestral DNA. Also there are vestigial sequences known to function in other species.

>Is DNA a master program where it can instruct all living organisms,
No, different organisms have vastly different genomes both in size and in content.

>and maybe even recode itself during meiosis thru some master switches being turned on and off?
There is genetic mosaicism and x-inactivaiton which occurs at a very early stage in embryo development not meiosis. Then there is cascading gene activaion for example in males, i.e autosomal genes activated in the presence of a Y. But all this applies only where there are functional non-ORF sequences. The exception is intron splicing which can use the same sequence in another reading frame. But again this is easily identifiable nowadays.

Bottom line here is there are sequences that are clearly historic and there are some that are not genes that we know do have function e.g. ribosomal DNA, and lots more without function. In fact it is the non functional highly repetitive repeat sequences of DNA that is used for DNA fingerprinting in criminology etc. (VNTR’s).

There is gene locus too to contend with and also chromosome order and shape, with the positioning of telomeres and centromeres. We used to think that humans have 1600 million base pairs and only 1.5% are coding genes.

Should read: We used to think that humans have 1600 million base pairs and that those were all genes, now we know that only 1.5% are coding genes. ~30,000 genes.

Reads like a volcano under a calm surface casting ominous rumbling.