Serial Readings
Vil’amsburg Diaries: Drinking, Singing, Kissing, Crying
[Serial Readings]
The men – a bunch of repressed beards who don’t know how to have fun – are drinking. They call me depressed for not joining them. Why would I make a fool of myself like that? For what good reason?
Now they’re all dancing. Men only. They stand on one side of the table. Hands on their neighbors’ shoulders. Eyes closed. “Ay ay ay, Va’toisef Ester va’tevakesh.” The three older ones wear funny-looking hats. The younger ones only have their beards sprayed white. I look at my beard, I can spray it black only. It’s already closer to white. They sway back and forth. The women stand on the opposite side, right next to me, and snap pictures. They laugh. The men understand the cue. They get funnier. They pause for another cup of wine.
I join them. One cup follows another. One song follows the next. The songs become somber, slow Yom Kippur songs. Pierem, Yom Ke’Pierem. Never forget that. Soon the women look frightened by the sight of grown men crying. Acting out. Shloime starts to hug everyone around. It’s funny at first. Not so when he starts kissing. He’s kind of weird. Everyone in the family knows.
I know I won’t be able to drive home. Breindy is upset at me for something. I may have broken something. There’s glass all over the place. That’s my brother-in-law over there. In the bright orange hat and bow tie. But he’s a brother-in-law from the other side. Wife’s sister’s husband. What’s he doing here? He must have come with the hordes of people collecting money. As the Talmud says, “Each who extends a hand, he is given.”
Little Bruchy is climbing up my lap. She removed her oppressive strawberry costume and is left with the pimply face made up in red and black. It’s late in the night for her. She must be tired. I miss Nuchem. I haven’t heard from him all day. I hope he isn’t out there doing something stupid. Last year he came home Shushan Purim morning and slept until the afternoon of the next day. He must be far’drugged, Breindy decided then. After which she decided never to talk about it. Or think about it. Se zol nisht shaten far shidiechim.
Is Nuchem that unhappy? I just hope he doesn’t do drugs. He’ll get addicted, then rob banks and get AIDS. He just shouldn’t get caught. There are uncovered cops on the streets purim. They look for drunk drivers. I may be too drunk to drive too. We will walk home. Or take a car service.
My eyes are closed. My mouth is dry and hoarse. We’re singing “koh echsoif.” A tear forms in my eye, soon to follow the one already trickling down, getting lost in my beard. I’m part of it now. I belong. I belong. I belong.
Printable Version
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?
Like this comment?
1
@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.
Like this comment?
1
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)
Like this comment?
1
Oops, didn’t see these new posts.
Schroedigers cat is Yes AND No hold it we can’t run before walking, ight?
Like this comment?
1
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
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
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.)
Like this comment?
1
>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”.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
> 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.
Like this comment?
1
>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”.
Like this comment?
1
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????
Like this comment?
1
>“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.
Like this comment?
1
> 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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
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??
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
> 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.
Like this comment?
1
“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.”
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
*yawn*
Like this comment?
1
I second the motion
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
Emes, if you read any dawkins book, imma re-watch it. With you. How’s that for a deal?
Like this comment?
1
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!!)
Like this comment?
1
Uh huh. Uh huh. Hmmmm. Uh huh. And how does that make you feel?
Like this comment?
2
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
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
Mr. Emes,
College professors lose tenure and are fired for not accepting a spherical earth 100%.
Everyone who is against flat-earth 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 the ’round earth’ but have to keep quiet about it.
I know a geologist in Lakewood with several patents who proves beyond a shadow of a doubt on the geological level, the mathematic improbability of a spherical earth. He would give lectures on this on College campuses although no one will allow him on campus.
But like I said earlier, if you want party and blow off the Torah you can buy into the round earth. If you want the emes, you have to face up to the truth and just do it. (And find a way to like it
This comment is well liked. Like it too?
9
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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
Jason,
I have agreed to accept your interpretation. I should have been more circumspect in my wording to Shauly. Sorry about that .
Like this comment?
1
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?
Like this comment?
2
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?
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
> 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?
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
> 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.
Like this comment?
1
> 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.
Like this comment?
1
>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”.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
>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
Like this comment?
1
> 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.
Like this comment?
1
> 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?
Like this comment?
2
>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?
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
2
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?
Like this comment?
1
Lieb,
Have you by chance been reprogramed with all of John Lennin’s data base??? Or is just with the Can you imagine??
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
2
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.
Like this comment?
1
Some biologistst have some doubts on some parts of Evolutionary Theory.
A nice snapshot of honest science.
Don’t run to Shull just yet.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
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
Like this comment?
1
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
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
>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
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1
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.
Like this comment?
1
You are NOT talking down to me. You are NOT talking to me at all.
Please answer my questions.
Like this comment?
1
>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.
Like this comment?
1