- This topic has 124 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Brony: Sorry it took so long to respond. It’s basically what Popa said to SecularFrummy, though I obviously get more detailed and in-depth. It works with “long day”, though long day isn’t necessary. Because once you believe that G-d created the world, He could have done it however He wants. So He did it with a system of interconnectedness and a world that looked as if it had developed for billions of years. Why would He do that? Modern medicine is the answer. Hashem gave us the world that He did so that in this day and age we can have the medicine and technology that we are meant to have at this point of our historical development.
Honestly, the fact that the Torah says we were down to 9 humans less than 5000 years ago has stronger questions from science than the first few Perakim of B’reishis do (though, of course, these are answerable as well).
Its not just with Bacteria, Its insects as well
People will use pesticides to kill insects, A small percentage of insects are immune to that pesticide. Since insects reproduce very qucikly fairly quickly you will have a group of insects immune to a certain pesticide and you have to switch pesticides to kill more insects as the remaining insects have selectivly become immune to the pesticide.
If you ever read about pest problems in the house, they will tell you to change brands every 3 months or so , so you wont have this problem
SF, if you believe in a Creator, you don’t know that humans evolved from bacteria. It’s a circular argument. I think popa meant that when we observe, not speculate, that humans (or, I guess, any mammal) evolved from bacteria, then we can talk.
First off, the OP wrote “I heard” the Regents were cancelled. Did anyone confirm that they are, in fact, cancelled?
As for Biology and evolution, I actually taught 9th grade Regents biology for one year. I asked the principal if he wanted me to skip evolution, and he said no. I told the class the following:
“The Midrash says that every time Hashem does something miraculous, he also creates a way for those who don’t want to believe to have a way out of it. For example, Rashi says the wind blew the night before kriyas yam suf so some could say the wind caused the sea to split. You can say these things make sense, because otherwise it wouldn’t be a viable option. In the case of Hashem creating the world and all the living things, evolution was that “alternative belief” that Hashem created. We know that the truth is that Hashem created us. Others, however, are fooled by the alternative that Hashem put in place. By studying the alternative, and keeping firmly in mind that it is just an alternative, we can appreciate the perfection of Hashem! When we try to fool someone, there are always ways to see through the illusion. Let’s appreciate the perfection of Hashem by going through his “illusion” of evolution, and seeing how thoroughly he fooled all these people!”
I have been reading and following the evolution debate for many, many years. A great deal of conflict comes from different people using the same terms to mean different things.
The word “evolution” or even the “theory of evolution” is often used by different people differently. Natural selection, meaning that organisms that reproduce better will have their offspring eventually take over a given population is just simple logic. That mutations occur on a regular basis has been demonstrated. If all people mean by evolution is the above then it has been pretty much proven.
What has not been demonstrated (what PBO means) is that a series of small mutations together with natural selection can succeed in changing a hippo-like creature into a whale or a monkey-like creature into a man or a fish-like creature into a lizard.
Evidence for this latter claim (often called macro-evolution) is circumstantial (i.e. things like vestigial organs) but it has never been demonstrated experimentally.
Poppa is also right that biology is not “based on” evolution in any practical sense. One can be a fantastic biologist or medical doctor without subscribing to macro-evolutionary theory. When biologists say that their field is based on evolution, they mean that they use evolution based terminology to discuss things and that it is taken as a given.
Another concept many people mean when they use the word “evolution” is the common descent of all life from a single organism or a small number of simple organisms. The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how common descent happened.
Thanks for that, Avi K — very interesting!
pba, I can’t tell if you’re serious. it’s not science because it takes too long to test? wut? so any evolution you “can see” is too obvious, and anything else is unprovable? lol nope.
benignuman,
I’m not going to get into an Evolution debate here because I don’t believe this is the correct place for it, however the differentiation you make between “Micro” and “Macro” evolution is kind of silly. Why would a billion little Micro genetic changes to the body of an animal stop at the arbitrary point where we human beings would start calling it a new “specie”? “Macro” evolution would just be the result of billions of Micro changes to a population of animals….
Of course if you believe the world is only 6000 years old you cannot believe that Evolution happened because there wouldn’t be enough time….. But there are plenty of other questions from Modern Science that you run into if you believe that anyway.
Sam, the Medrash says that until the Cheit of Adam Harishon, the planets went much faster. That would suggest that time advanced at a different speed. Long day.
You also mentioned the concept of Bitzivyonam Nivra’u, that everything was created mature. I’ve heard people mocking this approach as intellectually dishonest, since why would Hashem deliberately create a circumstance just for the sake of tricking people. However, they are missing one point. The world is one big interdependent cycle. The plants need the healthy topsoil, which is created by microorganisms, which feed on other decaying matter, which come from dead plants and animals. Rivers are formed by the slow process of erosion. Large animals eat smaller animals who eat bugs that feed on bacteria. Hashem created decaying matter and everything else in all stages of the cycle.
Lakewood Fellow, the difference is a macro one. Changes within the system are part of the system. A change beyond the system is out of the question and has never been observed.
A computer can host a program and even change it, but it will never download a new computer.
damoshe- they really cancelled it. its not such a big deal because you only need 3 sciences to get a regents diploma
Lakewood Fellow,
There are two issues here. One is what the experiments show, i.e. what has been observed, and the second is whether macro evolution follows as a matter of inductive logic from micro evolution.
The experiments have not been able to demonstrate macro-evolution. While changes to fruit flies, who reproduce in much quicker cycles than mammals, can be achieved and groups can be isolated in to what is arguably different species of fruit fly, they have not be able to turn a fruit fly into something that wouldn’t be characterized as fruit fly under our current system of classification (and often mutations reverse themselves in later generations).
This phenomenon, that change can be achieved relatively easily, but it remains with in bounds is not uncommon with biological organisms. For example there is great variation among humans in intelligence but in subsequent generations the offspring of super-smart and super-dumb humans trends back to the mean. They do not keep on getting smarter and keep on getting dumber.
Similarly, with artificial selection, while great variation can be achieved by breeding dogs, breeders are still limited in how far they can change dogs. They cannot get them to no longer be dogs.
I can think of two biological explanation for why this might be. First, most mutations are the switching on or off of genes that are already present, or the deletion of genes altogether. To make a leap from fish to lizard, however would require mutations that create new genes, which are relatively rare. (Furthermore if there is a base norm of an organism, the mutations might just be random variations of norm and will eventually revert back to the norm over time especially if they are not isolated).
Second, to create a large scale change you will often need numerous mutations working in concert, one-point mutations may not be sufficient. So small change of the one or two-point variety (such as is common with bacteria) might be easy, but large scale change might be very difficult.
I was not making statement of belief or fact as to myself when I described the different things people mean when they say “evolution.” I am just trying to clear up confusion and to help in the defining of terms.
I am personally uncertain about the validity of the Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of life’s diversity. There are a lot of questions on it that are better than the answers. On the other hand there is pretty decent evidence for common descent. If one dispenses with the Modern Synthesis, what is there to replace it?
I have some ideas but that is well beyond the scope of this post.
HaLeiVi,
The point is that all the changes are “in the System”.
If you make enough small changes to a population of animals (what you call “micro changes”) it will change the animals to a point were that population of animals is so different that we would call them a “new species”. There is no real difference between “Micro” and “Macro” evolution, it is a difference in quantity of the changes; that’s all.
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems the posters here seem to be trying to find ways to understand the Torah given that evolution definitely happened instead of trying to understand evolution while using the Torah as the fact. G-d specifically told us what happened in the Torah, either you believe it or you don’t.
I want to stress again that if you believe that the world is 6000 years old obviously evolution could never have happened..
The point is also that there are never large scale changes and it is pretty accepted that the evolution of species happens when a population of animals is isolated from its original population…. As far as dogs the argument is that given enough time they would change to another species. It is an accepted fact that the Shi Tzu’s ancestors were wolves as recently as a couple thousand years ago, what a 100 million years (or more) of changes could do is unfathomable, you don’t see Shi Tzus reverting back to wolves either so i’m not sure were you’r going with your “reverting back to the mean” statement either.
HaLeiVi,
The point is that all the changes are “in the System”.
If you make enough small changes to a population of animals (what you call “micro changes”) it will change the animals to a point were that population of animals is so different that we would call them a “new species”. There is no real difference between “Micro” and “Macro” evolution, it is a difference in quantity of the changes; that’s all.
There are a gazillion websites that discuss all these biological matters at length, why an in-depth discussion of matters out of the depth of many of you (judging from your posts) is appropriate here is a head-scratcher. To get a handle on any of these complex arguments takes literally years, and even then you only get a personal sense of which way your sentiment lies; there are good and sophisticated arguments on all sides of these issues, as well as numerous charlatans and snake-oil salesman on both sides (many of them with impressive credentials). As for me, I am deeply skeptical of most of the grander claims of neo-darwinism, as well as the explanations of creationists. I think nobody really understands the aggregated data, especially the paleontological(fossil)evidence. My religious beliefs are simply not cowed by evidence which, quite frankly, nobody has any hope of explaining adequately.
I want to stress again that if you believe that the world is 6000 years old obviously evolution could never have happened..
Please define:
World:
Years:
Old:
Being that the famous Zohar/Medrash says that there were 974 “worlds” before this one, the question becomes moot (unless of course you understand completely what that means).
“
you don’t see Shi Tzus reverting back to wolves either “
dogs are a good starting point since there are so many divers breeds which are all of the same species.
I have heard (from a dog expert) that when dogs of different breeds are allowed to inter-mate the result after a few generations is predictable. some sort of generic uniform dog results almost regardless of the mix started with, provided you have enough variation. they do not become wolves or foxes or coyotes. I am not making any point with this or any argument in the discussion. it is just an interesting fact. (if true).
The elephant in the room is the question why they did not want teach this. Darwinism and other theories, even the big bang theorists, do not require nonacceptance of a creator or primal cause. If it is in error, it is not quite avoda zara. Methinks the educators suspect that any exposure to other belief systems will bring the edifice crashing down. Similarly they fear in EY that to put a yeshiva bochur in the army, he will be shmadded up in the blink of an eye. This is a resounding self accusal, of producing a substandard product, a generation whose yahadus can be damaged with the brush of a feather. Where is the concept of a Jew with analytical thought, with confidence in his knowledge who can withstand any nisayon? 0rur oseh meleches Hashem rimiyo!
DaasYochid- One does not need to observe actual evolution (or any fact, for that matter) in order to come to factual conclusions. Speculation is certainly enough, as long as you “observe” evidence.
Just think about the parsha of two weeks ago which talks about sotah. We don’t require eidim to observe a married woman having an affair, we only need them to speculate after they have observed evidence of her being secluded with a man other than her husband.
Lakewood Fellow- I’d like to hear an explanation from you about convergent evolution. Why are there both donkey zebras and horse zebras? According to standard evolution lines that should be impossible.
Simply if the Biology: The Living Environment Regents is canceled no one in that school can get an Advanced Regents Diploma. However to get a basic diploma you only need to pass one science regents.
For an advanced diploma you need 2 science regents one life science regents and one physical science regents and 3 years of high school science where one year must be living environment. The last year does not need to be a regents course, it could be an AP or a science, technology or engineering elective.
I have link for the state requirements to pass regents in New York State available if the Moderators let me post the link I will.
I teach at yeshiva and public school for a living for all 3 math regents and for all 4 science regents.
Is Chaim Berlin also not taking it?
Gamanit,
You asked “Lakewood Fellow- I’d like to hear an explanation from you about convergent evolution. Why are there both donkey zebras and horse zebras? According to standard evolution lines that should be impossible.”
Why would it be impossible? It would be quite likely if two animals are exposed to similar variables in their respective environments that they should evolve similar mechanisms for dealing with those variables.
As an aside it makes sense to cancel the Biology regent if you have a problem teaching students that the world is older then 6000 years old and if you have a problem with common descent…
I’m sorry. I phrased it wrong. I should have said highly improbable, not impossible. There are many other animals in the area, none of them have stripes- more spots. It’s improbable for two creatures from different lines that happen to look a bit similar to choose exactly the same method of hiding from predators on their own.
Lakewood Fellow,
Ironically, in my post about understanding terms in discussions of evolution you misunderstood me. Your example of the genetic similarities between a wolf and shi-tzu is evidence of common descent. It is not evidence of the neo-Darwinian mechanism for evolution.
However, I don’t think it is actually evidence of either. I don’t think wolves are objectively a different species from dogs. If you define species objectively, meaning animals are of different species if they cannot produce viable fertile offspring, then they are of the same species. Variations within species can be emphasized and maintained (like skin colour) with extreme isolation to prevent regression but no one yet has managed to change an animal from one species to another (in the objective sense described above).
Obviously a neo-Darwinian mechanism would have much more time to work with. But it would have the disadvantage of using the much less efficient natural selection and ordinary course mutations. Remember, it is not the number of years that is important but the number of generations.
As I said above, however, there is plenty of evidence for common descent, the issue is the mechanism by which it was achieved.
“The elephant in the room is”
I think the definition of this phrase
is: an obvious, clearly visible and shocking item that by some sort of unspoken agreement, no one dares mention.
That is not what is happening here. No one need beg the question, they block evolution because they don’t believe it.
Perhaps they haven’t thought into it as well as you have (snicker!) and believe that evolution is denying creation. and so it is.
Yes it is possible to formulate a twisted philosophy that includes both, but they (school administrators) haven’t reached that lofty level. Perhaps you should explain it to them.
Besides, the evolutionary theory that is taught and tested on the regents’ exam clearly touts evolution as the result of accident and denial of creation. (The regents haven’t reached your lofty heights either)
Just the same, in one yeshiva I have knowledge of years ago, though evolution wasn’t taught, students were not forbidden to answer those questions if they knew the answer.
Often they did know from having studied regents review books.
done and out of this.
Gamanit
The animals don’t “choose” anything, different pressures make those with certain characteristic’s offspring and descendants become dominant over time. It would actually make sense that genetically similar animals (Like horses and donkeys) would evolve the same sort of responses to similar pressures.
benigmum,
I agree with and appreciate your distinction between common descent and the discussions as to what mechanisms led to that descent came about. Allot of people lump it all together.
As far as the Shi Tzu thing: the point is that the reason for the difference in appearance between Shi Tzus and wolves is because Shi Tzus are GENETICALLY different then wolves, just not enough to theoretically prevent a hybrid from being fertile. There is really no reason to assume that genetic changes would stop at the point that it would affect the fertility of the offspring of a hybrid between a shi tzu and the original wolf population.
The amounts of time talked about when discussing these things are so vast that it is very very hard to even begin to imagine them and the amount of time things could have had to change….
SF, I could use the exact same argument to prove a Creator.
interjection,
“G-d specifically told us what happened in the Torah, either you believe it or you don’t.”
That’s the thing. G-d did not specifically tell us what happened in the Torah. Maaseh B’reishis is sisreih Torah. It has very little literal meaning, if any (machlokes Rambam and Ramban whether there is anything literal in Maaseh B’reishis).
DaasYochid- Then do so, I having trouble figuring out how one can make such an argument?
It’s like my moshol with the cars. If I argued that it was made in Japan, and you thought it was made in China, as long as both are possible, the existence of the car proves neither.
There is a Creator who is definitely capable of direct creation. He can also use evolution if He wants.
The existence of humans is no indication which happened, just that something happened. (I think it says in the Torah that it was direct, so I’ll go with that approach).
Sorry, Secular Frummy! Bio was years ago!
All- Please do some research on the ‘Blind’ Mexican Cavefish. Here you have a species that evolved depending on the location to the proximity of the mouth of the cave. Evolution in progress.
Dafmaven, since you teach all the sciences, perhaps you can answer the points I raised. Doesn’t the Earth Science curriculum contradict Biblical Creation? Is there any cosmology in the Physics curriculum? Why is Living Environment singled out?
Can anyone give an opinion on the theory I wrote earlier? I’d like to hear what people think of it. To recap: The Midrash tells us that Hashem made an “out” for every miracle He did, so that if someone wants, they can explain it as a natural thing. This was done to allow bechirah. Evolution is not illogical, it was simply Hashem’s “out” for creating the world. Hashem made it appear that living things evolved so that there can be bechirah about it.
Cosmology is not part of the physics curriculum. Also I have have a minor in physics and have never taken a course of Physics that involves cosmological topics about he creation of the universe. However the idea of string theory I have come across many times and I have mentioned in many of chemistry or physics classes. Some people who understand or know what string theory is claim in contradictory to biblical creation but I don’t see it to be that simple.
The Earth Science curriculum has a god chunk of its curriculum contradictory to Biblical creation, to the point where I think no Yeshiva should offer this course. A Yeshiva most offer 3 sciences it should not offer Earth Science. I have Taught Earth Science and I feel like I need permission of the Yeshiva on what I can and cannot teach and also how I need to approach many of the topics. But must yeshivas offer Earth Science because it is considered the easiest of all 4 of the science regents.
When I mentioned this cancellation of the bio regents to my principal of mine and few others I know they were very surprised that any Yeshiva was doing this for a few reasons. 1) Evolution has been covered on the regents for almost 40+ years why are they making an issue what has changed. 2) You can do fairly well on the regents even if you skip or just guess on the Evolution questions because the regents usually words them in such a way that they are easier to answer. 3) Some Yeshivas think that Evolution should be addressed on a basic level so when students encounter at a older age in college or from colleagues at work , they should know how to defend themselves from it because parts of theory do not defy biblical creation and some of it ideas can be found in midradshiam, Gemerahs and derashim from the Rishniom and Early Achroniam that predate Darwin and Lamarck. 4) It only regents that state mandates every school must offer. 5) Most of the information of the course makes you appreciate Hashem even more once you learn how the human body works.
That is why according to me this the wrong approach for a Yeshiva to address this topic by just canceling the regents when, a yeshiva should try to find a way to teach without completing making sound completely contradictory tot he bible.I think I do my best job when I do these topics which my Yeshiva lets me teach to approach in a correctly way and if I cant and deal with he regents questions during regents. Because their are way to get out from these questions based on religious reasons.
Yehudayona – I hope this answers your question. However, I will not discuss here the following 3 questions 1)What Yeshiva I teach at? (because I want to keep my identity secret) 2) My personal opinion on this topic? 3) How I go about teaching this topic? (Not so easy to explain in a simple fashion like this forum requires)
“There is really no reason to assume that genetic changes would stop at the point that it would affect the fertility of the offspring of a hybrid between a shi tzu and the original wolf population.”
It’s not an assumption. Despite decades of trying, with species of fly that’s life cycle is a week where mutation was induced by radiation and other means, and enhanced by artificial selection, true speciation has not been observed.
“The amounts of time talked about when discussing these things are so vast that it is very very hard to even begin to imagine them and the amount of time things could have had to change….”
But they aren’t so vast. The vastness is only from beginning to end but when different organism are viewed in isolation it’s not that vast. There is only about 2 million years to get from what we would today consider an ape to humans. That is about 100,000 generations (assuming shorter generations closer to the ape stage) of much smaller populations than we have today and much smaller than insects. Without induced mutation and artificial selection, 100,000 generations is not very much time.
DaMoshe- Why would Hashem create in a way that tricks humans? And most of the natural explanations have only been around for the last few hundred years, since science has made leaps to understanding the natural world. Before that, the miracles were thought to be just that, miracles.
“Before that, the miracles were thought to be just that, miracles.”
That is not true. Modern science didn’t invent the idea of Nature and natural laws that governed everything. The idea of every (public) miracle having an “out” is a Ramban in Chumash by the splitting of the Yam Suf.
But I don’t think the “out” argument is being used by DaMoshe properly. It’s not that natural means are an illusion. Rather Ramban says that when Hashem does nissim, they are done by as natural means as possible. So the splitting of the sea was done with a very strong wind. Under normal circumstances a even a very strong wind would not accomplish the full fledged splitting of the sea, but the use of the wind allows a person to say “maybe it was just a freak wind, very strong but very local.”
To carry that argument over to evolution one would have to say that the reason Hashem used evolution as the means of bringing about the incredible Human Being, is so that a person could say “maybe the intelligent Human with his capacity for moral choice and his incredible brain power and creativity was just a fluke of evolution, a happy accident.”
SecularFrummy: Hashem would make an alternative to allow for bechirah. The Ramban writes extensively about the fact that if there were no bechirah, there could be no reward. If miracles were completely obvious, and you had to believe in them, it wouldn’t be a big deal to believe in Hashem. The fact that there is a plausible explanation means the belief can be rewarded.
I don’t know what people thought a few hundred years ago. Maybe Hashem arranged it for this generation, not the previous ones.
DaMoshe- So why do we hold people of previous generations in such high regard? In the midbar? During the time of the Beis HaMikdash? Times of the gemara? These folks had it easy when it came to bechirah, miracles were happening left and right for some of them.
SecularFrummy: There are many things we are tested with. Belief in Hashem is only one of them. They had their own tests to deal with. Obviously, they were on a high enough level to merit seeing the open miracles. Maybe their test was to try and appreciate the “explainable” miracles as much as the inexplicable ones? I really don’t know.
brony:
I’m not saying any chiddushim; that’s the definition of science and the study thereof.
“Despite decades of trying, with species of fly that’s life cycle is a week where mutation was induced by radiation and other means, and enhanced by artificial selection, true speciation has not been observed.”
Genetic changes induced by radiation etc. are the only ones that “heal” themselves over generations, the natural genetic differences don’t stop. As an aside speciation has been observed with E Coli.
“But they aren’t so vast. The vastness is only from beginning to end but when different organism are viewed in isolation it’s not that vast. There is only about 2 million years to get from what we would today consider an ape to humans. That is about 100,000 generations”
First of all we consider 3000 years ago a long time ago. 1 million years is kind of incomprehensible. Second of all 2 million years ago according to evolutionists would not be were the common ancestor of humans and modern great apes would be. That would be more like 7 million years ago. 2 million years ago would be basically human just more similar to the common ancestor then we are.
sorry to say its about time someones waking up but a step in the right direction is always a good thing ……….. btw i heard chaim berlin is taking the regent wats up with that !?!?!?
DaMoshe- But that one test hinges on everything else. You fail that one, all else is lost. Can’t be said about any other issue.
SecularFrummy: Who says all else is lost? There’s a phrase, “Mitoch lo l’shma, bo l’shma” – if you do something that is not l’shma, eventually, you’ll do it l’shma. So even if someone’s doesn’t have full faith in Hashem, they can still do things which can eventually bring them to a full belief.
Even if it does hinge on that, so what? Does that mean it shouldn’t be a test?
DaMoshe- So would you allow a person who doesn’t hold of the Rambam’s 13 ikarim to be yotzei you in mitzvos? If not all is lost, what would be the issue?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.