Concepts in evolution

1. I didn't understand what you meant by: “static nature” that doesn't create natural selection. I'd be happy to explain if this isn't a hassle in the midst of all your other pursuits.
2. If we take your instructive parable about the monkeys who trample a Shakespearean sonnet under their feet, because there are constraints there that freeze “correct” letters.
In evolution, what freezes the letters is natural selection, and not just mutations or genetics, and selection is logical (unless I completely misunderstood section 1).
Don't you think natural selection erodes vision even a little?

The question of who determined natural selection
The concept of natural selection is not a logical principle
but the result of a law that someone enacted

Moish,
Natural selection is pure logic. The fittest survives. But evolution is not just natural selection. It is just one component within it.

Almog,
1. A collection of stones does not make natural selection except in a very banal sense. And by other laws of nature it would not make natural selection at all. Simply nothing would change.
2. As I explained here and in the notebook, without the laws of nature there is no evolution. The fact that within the whole thing there is also a logical-tautological component (=natural selection) in addition to all the other scientific components does not change anything.

Regarding heredity and genetics, I agree that this strongly points to an intelligent hand. Regarding natural selection, the matter is still unclear to me.
I will try to present it formally:
Man is complex at level X and therefore it is probable at level X that he has a designer.
Now we understand that the design was carried out by three mechanisms: mutations, heredity, and natural selection.
Each receives the credit for its operation – x/3.
Now I see that one of the mechanisms is logical. It is true that it requires the other two mechanisms to operate, but when they exist, then it is fundamentally logical, so I am left (as it were) with a complexity level of 2/3X, and the probability of the existence of a designer has dropped to 2/3X.
On which point does the doctor disagree?
Now a friend gave me a beautiful parable:
A drunkard is walking on a very narrow path, one hundred meters long, with a deep abyss on both sides.
His chance of crossing the finish line is zero.
Now it turns out that on the given route, the chance is actually reasonable. I am curious to see what causes the chance to increase so drastically, and I see that on both sides of the path there is a wall.
The right wall is a regular wall, and the left wall is there out of logical necessity.
Before I approached the path, I thought that the complexity of the process is X, and therefore the likelihood of an intelligent agent creating the walls is X.
After I got closer, I see that the left wall is there out of logical necessity.
Although the left (logical) wall is worth nothing without the right one, its part in the drunkard's success still cannot be ignored, it has a fifty percent partnership, and therefore the engineer will only receive half credit (on the right wall) even though without the engineer's wall the left wall would be worth nothing.
The analogy is clear. The doctor doesn't see a difference?
The doctor may think that even without natural selection, the view is strong, but that's not what I asked, but about the place of natural selection in the proof, and its effect on the view (even if it doesn't refute the view), because you wrote: “The fact that within the whole thing there is also a logical-tautological component (=natural selection) in addition to all the other scientific components doesn't change anything”, and I don't understand how it doesn't change the strength, even if not the conclusion.

Almog, this discussion is leading nowhere. It has no fundamental meaning, and you are also wrong in your argument and your example.

You could add that there is also mathematics in the picture (after all, some of the laws of nature are mathematical in nature, and some of the inferences made in the fields of science are only logical-mathematical derivations of results from the fundamental laws), and therefore the strength of the proof decreases even further (it is now already below zero). This is nonsense, of course. Since I am writing these things in Hebrew and since I am Israeli, it is a tautology, and therefore the proof of the existence of God has been weakened. The same goes for the numbering of pages in Darwin's book.

When you make a comparison, it is very important to place the two alternatives that you are comparing against each other, and to define them well. The two alternatives are: 1. Life was created by the laws of biology alone. 2. Life was created by the laws of biology together with natural selection.

Now you can immediately see why your comparison is wrong. The laws of biology are a special creation and without them evolution would not have occurred. This is argument 1 for the existence of God. Now you say that another element of natural selection has been added to the picture, which is logical. So what? Does this make the laws of biology more understandable and simple? It just adds another element to the picture and this element does not change the proof (which is argument 2). But adding it certainly does not reduce its strength.

I propose to end this unnecessary discussion here. There is no point in discussing whether this or that element increases or decreases the strength of the proof. What is important is the bottom line, whether there is an argument or not (i.e. whether the laws of heredity and biology are special enough or not).

Well, although I didn't understand why the parable was wrong.
On a related matter, do you believe that within the given laws, the chance of evolution (after a protein chain) reaching complex things is high?
From your book it sounds like you very much doubt this even within the laws, I'm interested in what basis.

This is a bit of a tricky question, and I don't think anyone can answer it, except to point to the fact that it did happen and therefore it is possible. But this is the desired assumption, since creationists will say it is the finger of God (meaning it didn't really happen randomly), and neo-Darwinists will say that it is indeed possible. Both interpretations are possible for the same facts, and I don't think there is a way to decide.
On the surface, it seems that a lot of attempts are needed for this to be plausible, and there are calculations that show that such a number could not really exist. But as mentioned, this is only a reason to doubt, and therefore neither creationists nor neo-Darwinists can speak with confidence here (which doesn't bother either side, of course).
In the book, I presented all of this only as a platform to show how special the laws have to be for this to happen. Hence, even if it is possible within the laws (meaning that they are so special that they make these impossible processes plausible), then the argument that it is outside the laws becomes even more compelling. Therefore, the atheist cannot get out of it in any way.
Because of this doubt, my main argument is outside the rules. I was told that in the book it is not pointed out enough, but in the article here on the site (written after the book) it is pointed out more (and also in my articles on YNET):
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98% D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95 %D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/

Indeed, I came across this article (some of it overlaps with the author's), and it pretty much sharpens the point.
1. Assuming that even within the laws, the chance of evolution reaching something complex is small, you wrote that then it is more of an indication of the special nature of the laws.
Which laws? I understand that you are not referring to actual laws, but to the state of affairs of the universe (chain A was exactly in place x, because if it were in y then complex life would not have developed, the synergic point was exactly in this form and not another, sequences with a survival advantage emerged randomly, etc.).
2. Assuming that within the laws, the chance is high (1 for example), what in the laws of nature increases the likelihood? Intentional mutations? After all, it is agreed that they are random.

1. The opposite. If outside the laws the chance is small – this shows that the laws are more special (because they cause something special to come into being). I'm talking about all the laws of nature, from physics to biology to heredity. The state of affairs of the universe itself is determined by the laws. The fact that any molecule or atom was in any place is because of the laws of nature. The fact that they exist at all is because of the laws.
2. As I wrote, all the laws of nature are responsible for this. By the way, the formation of mutations is not random either (the use of probability is like a cube, just a technical use because of the complexity of the calculation. I explained this in the book, and I think also in the article).

I think I only understood the first one.
1. If within the laws the chance is small, then the laws are even more special because they summoned the molecules at the right time and place. I am not referring to a rigid law (like gravity) but to a state of affairs that stemmed directly from the law. Am I right?
2. If within the laws the chance is reasonable (let's say that life will develop from a protein chain on every star), how did the laws of nature overcome the problem presented in the calculations? Where are the calculations wrong?
It's like claiming that a six-sided die will most likely fall on a 6, so the explanation would be that the die has a tendency to fall on that side.
But what can be said about evolution? How will it overcome statistics? Where did the calculation fail? Apparently, teleological mechanisms need to be reached that will ensure the “correct” results.
Thank you for your time and help.

Rabbi Michi just denies it, natural selection has weakened faith.
When a religious person comes to a zoo, he marvels and praises his God at how giraffes actually have a long neck that is adapted to their food, and how a lizard actually has a skin color that suits its environment, etc.
When an atheist comes to the zoo, he realizes that in all these things there is no miracle of adaptation, there are an infinite number of animals that were not adapted and did not survive.
Rabbi, you cannot deny reality.

Almog,
1. No. Laws that do not allow the formation of life are less special (there are many such laws). And if life happened within them, then it is a coincidence (the laws did not cause it, after all, the laws actually prevent it).
2. According to this interpretation, the laws of nature did not prevail. God intervened and exceeded the laws. This is exactly what creationists claim (and I wrote about how this cannot be ruled out from the findings. Neo-Darwinists assume the desired thing here - if the same thing happened, then it is probably reasonable and possible).

Nimrod,
Excuse me, but this is really nonsense.
The religious person who praises God in this way does not rely on my physical-theological argument, but on another argument that is truly flawed. According to your logic, Amnon Yitzhak is evidence against atheism because there are secular people who hear him and repent. The fact that people are more or less convinced says nothing about the quality of the argument. This needs to be examined on its merits. And on its merits, natural selection does not weaken the argument. Anyone who disputes this simply does not understand what chess is.
In short, you are categorically wrong. In such a discussion, it is impossible to deny reality simply because it is not about reality. The question of whether any evidence is weaker or stronger is a question of logic, not sociology. Therefore, if many people do not understand something and are convinced by bad evidence or are not convinced by good evidence, this is a sociological phenomenon, but it does not say anything about the quality of the evidence itself. Most people do not understand the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics either. So is this therefore less true than Newtonian mechanics?
In short, this is nonsense.

Rabbi, can you please explain why Almog is wrong in his parable? The parable sounds really brilliant and accurate.
I will quote for the convenience of the Honorable Rabbi:
“Now a friend gave me a beautiful parable:
A drunkard is walking on a very narrow path, one hundred meters long, with a deep abyss on both sides.
His chance of crossing the finish line is zero.
Now it turns out that on the given route, the chance is actually reasonable. I am curious to see what causes the chance to increase so drastically, and I see that on both sides of the path there is a wall.
The right wall is a regular wall, and the left wall is there by logical necessity.
Before I approached the path, I thought that the complexity of the process is X and therefore the likelihood of an intelligent agent creating the walls is X.
After I got closer, I see that the left wall is there by logical necessity.
Even though the left (logical) wall is worth nothing without the right, its part in the drunkard's success cannot be ignored, it has a fifty percent partnership, and therefore the engineer will only get half the credit (on the right wall) even though without the engineer's wall the left wall would be worth nothing.
The parable is clear. The doctor doesn't see a difference?

The rabbi repeated the argument over and over again, but still failed to explain why natural selection does not weaken eyesight. Almog's parable is excellent.
And by the way, you also praise your God for the coordination and planning of the human body, because in your notebooks you bring, in addition to the evidence of complexity, the evidence of the planning and adaptation that exists in the human body, regarding its systems. Well, natural selection shows that there is no planning here, and the adaptation is an appearance. So it's time for you to give up the evidence of planning and adaptation in biology, because as you said, this is a failed argument.

Rabbi, please! Where is his parable wrong?

I explained it well. You just need to read. Please stop these annoying requests.

Rabbi Michai Avraham's point is this:
It is possible to describe reality from a physical perspective and from a biological perspective. What is the difference between them? In the type of objects we are discussing. Physical objects of a certain size level (not quantum) work according to Newton's second law or a statistical variation of it - every body persists in its motion until another force is applied to it. The described world is deterministic. Biological objects, especially of a certain level of complexity, work according to a goal function that, according to the rules of evolution, we can conveniently define as the survival of the genes or cell to the next generation through their replication. The world actually described is purposive (what strategies serve this goal function). However, since we are dealing with chemical-physical objects, this world can actually be described deterministically as arising from the basic physical conditions created following the Big Bang. Reality in this sense is completely deterministic. Given the basic conditions, you will eventually get humans. The reason we don't do this is entirely technical. The level of computational complexity required is too great to be able to converge on a clear description of nature. What do we do in such a situation? We divide nature into layers, with each layer assuming the results of the layer below it as given and busy explaining its layer: physics-chemistry-biology-evolutionary psychology-political science and economics-humanities. In this way, we manage to describe reality without losing ourselves in the technical details. And we must also remember: reality is deterministic and its very determinism is, according to Rabbi Michai, the psycho-ontological proof. The evolutionary purposive aspect is true only for the biological layer, but not for the entire pyramid that stands on a physical basis.
So why do people make such a big deal about evolution?
In my opinion, the reason lies in the proof of God's existence from the soul. The proof goes like this:
A. Man is a thinking creature.
B. Thinking requires a non-empirical dimension (requires a soul).
C. A soul that purifies God.
D. There is a God. M.S.L.
A variation of this proof will replace thinking in life, but the proof is still the same proof. The proof is ancient and its roots are already with Socrates in Plato's Phaedo dialogue. The proof is not on the list of proofs for the existence of God by Kant and, following him, by Rabbi Michai, because it requires a certain metaphysics that was broken in modern times by Descartes' cogito, which separated a complete separation between matter and consciousness and thus prevented this type of philosophy (for this reason, the concept of spiritual almost never appears in Rabbi Michai, but rather as a purely psychological matter). However, most religious people, if not all, belong philosophically to the Middle Ages, and therefore, from their point of view, the proof is completely acceptable and, in fact, quite popular. Evolution provides an answer to the assertion either by violating assumption b or assumption c (note that even if reason is a product of evolution, it is not certain that it does not have non-empirical interests, but this is beyond the scope of the discussion). Violating the assumptions allows one to claim that thinking developed in an empirical evolutionary manner without the need to assume the existence of a soul and therefore God. This is the secular argument against proof from the soul. Rabbi Michai does not argue with this layer. In fact, he agrees with the secular argument (if only for philosophical reasons). However, as Rabbi Michai repeatedly emphasizes, his main concern is not evolution but reality itself, which in his opinion points to an external creator. And the discussion of evolution neither enhances nor diminishes this argument.