Versiune completa:Creationism Versus Evolutionism
Pagini: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72
Polul nord este un spatiu restrins, dar nu este izolat. El trebuie luat impreuna cu toata Europa, Asia, Africa si America la socoteala.
Hai sa luam un caz concret. Daca muti un urs brun la Pol evolutionismul spune ca acesta se albeste, ca sa vaneze mai bine. Insa cate milioane de ani se consuma pana cand un urs brun se transforma intr-un urs alb? Si daca ursul brun nu corespunde mediului atunci cum prinde el milioanele alea de ani pana se albeste?
Pentru ca o specie sa supravietuiasca are nevoie nu de mutatii in pas de gasca, ci de aparitia unor mecanisme complexe, deci de mutatii care sa conlucreze. Ciocul ciocanitorii e conjugat cu o musculatura a cefei foarte puternica, altfel capul i s-ar face zob. Daca intre mutatia care a generat acest cioc si mutatia care a generat structura muschilor cefei ar fi existat milioane de ani specia nu ar fi putut supravietui. Daca ai cutia unui ceas de mana si adaugi treptat cate o piesa ceasul nu va functiona decat in final, nu si pe parcursul procesului. Mutatiile sunt accidente. Unele accidente pot fi si calitative, insa e necesar sa fie si functionale.
Pentru ca o specie sa supravietuiasca are nevoie nu de mutatii in pas de gasca, ci de aparitia unor mecanisme complexe, deci de mutatii care sa conlucreze. Ciocul ciocanitorii e conjugat cu o musculatura a cefei foarte puternica, altfel capul i s-ar face zob. Daca intre mutatia care a generat acest cioc si mutatia care a generat structura muschilor cefei ar fi existat milioane de ani specia nu ar fi putut supravietui. Daca ai cutia unui ceas de mana si adaugi treptat cate o piesa ceasul nu va functiona decat in final, nu si pe parcursul procesului. Mutatiile sunt accidente. Unele accidente pot fi si calitative, insa e necesar sa fie si functionale.
Problema pe care o pui tu este cunoscuta. Din cite stiu eu, pe talkorigins.org este tratata pe larg. Poti sa te uiti acolo. Pina una-alta nu mi-ai zis care e treaba cu cangurii/marsupialele
O poti rezuma. Altfel sunt obligat sa citesc siteul dat de tine si sa-ti raspund dupa ce il citesc. In primul caz ar merge mai repede, in al doilea trebuie sa astepti pana termin cu cititul.
Foaarte interesant site.
| QUOTE |
A later ape probably ancestral to gibbons. Dryopithecus (mid-Miocene) -- A later ape probably ancestral to the great apes & humans. At this point Africa & Asia connected via Arabia, and the non-gibbon apes divided into two lines: |
Probably... un termen foarte indragit de evolutionisti.
Ok, iata alte articole interesante pe tema mutatiilor genetice:
| QUOTE |
At last, a good mutation? There are children who are so prone to infection that, if they survive at all, they have to spend their lives in an artificial ‘bubble’. This is the usual fate of those who have inherited two defective copies (one from each parent) of a gene which produces an enzyme called ADA (adenosine deaminase). Because they are unable to make ADA, toxic substances accumulate in their blood which slowly damage the body’s immune cells. However, in an unprecedented finding, a U.S. boy called Jordan Houghton has spontaneously recovered from his condition.1 All the evidence indicates that in one line of his immune cells, one of the faulty genes has apparently repaired itself. Geneticist Hagop Youssoufian at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, says about this 'fascinating' occurrence: ‘We finally have a clear example of a mutation doing something good’. ‘Back mutations’, replacing a letter in the DNA sequence which was faulty back to what it originally should have been, are not unknown. They certainly do not show us how significant information can arise de novo, as they merely (accidentally) ‘restore’ what should have been there.An occurrence like this (encouraging, but exquisitely rare) may actually not be mutational as such, as there are abundant error-checking, proof-reading and repair mechanisms in our genetic machinery. Youssoufian’s ‘at last’ statement highlights the fact that mutations, random accidental changes in copying hereditary information, are overwhelmingly a downhill process. Geneticists in hospitals are all too familiar with the harm they cause in people who inherit their effects. |
| QUOTE |
ARE MUTATIONS HELPFUL? Because natural selection can only choose from what is there, evolutionists must have faith that somehow mutations provide the new raw material for living things to evolve into other, more complicated life-forms having new structures and functions. But this is a blind faith, completely unsupported by the facts. The blueprint of living things earned by DNA is more complicated than the most sophisticated computer program. This blueprint is copied when living things reproduce, and mutations are nothing more or less than chance mistakes during copying. Can you imagine trying to improve a computer program, to give it new, more complex functions, by relying on copying mistakes? That's why the thousands of mutations of which we know in the human race are labelled by the diseases they cause. Listen to what the evolutionist Dr Pierre-Paul Grasse, Europe's most distinguished biologist, has to say. He was past president of the French Academy of Sciences, and editor of the prestigious 26-volume Traite de Zoologie'. 'The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.' -- Pierre-Paul Grass' |
| QUOTE |
Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics Introduction: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states simply that an isolated system will become more disordered with time In the first part of this article, we established that the naturalistic self-transformation of the universe from simple to complex required by evolution is in direct contradiction to the second law. Known "rules" of thermodynamics render the evolutionary origin of stars and planets from condensing clouds of gas implausible. Many evolutionists claim however, that the earth is an open system and local increases in order are possible, eg the observation that ordered crystals form spontaneously from less ordered solutions means that evolution from simple to complex can occur. This article will investigate these claims. We have seen that in a number of open systems, order would apparently increase by Itself. Let's take three examples: 1. A seed growing into a plant 2. Workmen building a car 3. Saltwater cooling down to form salt crystals The Second Law is not violated in any of these, since the total disorder in the universe increases as follows: CHANGE IN OPEN SYSTEM II Disorder Decreases + CHANGE IN SURROUNDINGS II Disorder Increases EQUALS CHANGE IN WHOLE UNIVERSE ("Isolated system") II Disorder Increases The decrease in disorder of the open system's more than balanced by the increase in disorder in the surroundings, so that the disorder in the whole universe always increases, e.g. when the saltwater cools, it heats up the air around it, which gives an increase in disorder in the air molecules. Therefore, says the evolutionist, you can have a local decrease in disorder (eg., on the earth) balanced by an increase in disorder elsewhere, without violating the Second Law. So far, he is right, (if we ignore the fact that the chaos to cosmos notion is invalid when we consider the whole universe) except that even a local increase in order will not happen unless we have special conditions. Order, complexity and information will never arise spontaneously without a mechanism or motor. Take Example No. 1. The raw energy pouring from the sun onto the seed will produce disorder, not order, unless the seed has the highly complex photosynthetic mechanism and the direction of the genetic code. A seed growing into a plant is not analogous to the presumed evolutionary process in any case, since it involves an 'unfolding' of information which is already there in the genetic 'blueprint'. Evolution requires information and complexity to arise and keep increasing over millions of years. In Example No. 2 we also have an open system and available energy, but again we have an energy conversion mechanism, and coded information giving direction to the process. We see that it takes machines to make machines — it takes ordered systems to produce ordered systems. In living things, the information necessary to overcome the effects of the Second Law is passed on from generation to generation. This information 'rides on' the chemistry of the cell, just as the information in this article 'rides on' the ink and paper, but transcends it The information in the DNA code and this page both depend on the sequence, or specific order of the constituents. The Second Law tells us that this can be copied many times, eg., in a photocopier, but information will never spontaneously be added to it — rather it will tend to be lost. The original information on this page had to be imposed upon it from the outside and had its origin in MIND — just as the information in the genes of living creatures had its ultimate origin in the mind of God and was imposed upon the matter in Creation Week. On the "primitive earth" there could have been no machines or ordered systems — the first "primitive cell" could not arise without these special conditions, as we have seen. Example No. 3 (crystals) is often cited, but has no relevance to the problem. This is because biological growth processes involve complexity, whereas crystal growth involves regularity If you break up a large salt crystal, you get a lot of smaller salt crystals. If you break up a molecule of a biological protein, eg. insulin, into smaller pieces, it is no longer insulin since the information it carries in its specific sequence of components is lost. A crystal of ice, for example, carries no more information than a single water molecule. The formation of a crystal involves molecules assuming a rigidly predetermined pattern — there is no growth in information or complexity, and again there is a pre-existing "code". For the sake of further discussion, let's allow the first cell to somehow form in violation of these facts. Obviously, until you have something living and reproducing, mutation and selection are not involved. Could mutation and selection act as the necessary mechanism/code to locally overcome the effects of the Second Law? Mutation is a random change in a pre-existing code It is not, therefore, a code or a mechanism as such. Selection is merely a commonsense occurrence — the elimination of the unfit. It cannot be either a code or an ordering mechanism in itself. What about both together? The evolutionist still has one counter-argument left, providing we ignore the impossibility of getting to the primitive earth and the first cell. The minute random fluctuations in order represented by genetic mutation are "fixed" and given a certain direction by natural selection, he claims Thus, the two acting in concert act as a mechanism; the analogy is occasionally given of a jack, where the handle moves up and down, and natural selection is represented by the ratchet, "lockingin" those motions which are in the right direction. Dr. Harold Armstrong, a physicist and editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, correctly points out that this superficially attractive analogy is not appropriate, since the handle movements are not truly random, but directional — ie., up and down. A closer analogy, he claims, would be as follows: The random motion of electrons in the resistor A at a particular room temperature would cause some to flow in the direction of the arrow. The rectifier B would only allow those in one direction to pass, and thus a current could flow, driving electric motor C which could perform useful work. It sounds good, but it won't work. This machine would be continually extracting heat from the environment to perform work, and one of the consequences of the Second Law is that this can't happen. This example deserves further consideration by creationists — a detailed analysis, considering e.g. fluctuations in order in the rectifier itself and applying these to the bioloqical situation may be fruitful. A further point is that this classic "small fluctuations" argument of micromutation is in serious trouble on other grounds (the absence of transitional forms, the difficulty accounting for the "usefulness" of proposed transitional stages, and the small amount of genetic "load" in living things) which are forcing a number of leaders in evolutionary thought back to "macromutations" (sudden leaps or "saltations" — e.g. a non-flying creature becomes a flying one in one single mutation). Yet to get out of one set of difficulties, they must propose that a random change has given rise to a significant increase in order and information — the Second Law says that this will not happen without a mechanism which in this case is certainly lacking. In conclusion, 1. The Second Law applied to the whole universe is the death-knell for any proposed evolutionary scheme. (see part 1) 2. No biological order can arise without pre-existing coded mechanisms — the formation of the first cell from naturalistic processes is a thermodynamic impossibility. 3. After the first cell, mutation/selection do not appear to be adequate candidates for the ordered mechanism required to locally overcome the effects of the Second Law in an open system. Information and order, form, body, arrangement and complexity do not arise spontaneously, but are spontaneously and naturally lost. |
| QUOTE |
Can you imagine trying to improve a computer program, to give it new, more complex functions, by relying on copying mistakes? |
Ei bine, raspunsul este afirmativ!!!
Figaro, se pare ca cine a scris articolul asta nu a auzit ca lucrul asta chiar se face, e-adevarat in mod experimental. Se procedeaza in felul urmator: avem o problema de rezolvat si cunoastem solutiile pe un numar de cazuri oarecare (cu cit mai mare numarul cu atit mai bine). Se genereaza niste programe care sunt supuse apoi unor procese de selectie si mutatie. Sunt selectate programele care aproximeaza din ce in ce mai bine solutiile cazurilor cunoscute. Evident, in urma "mutatiilor" apar multe programe care au erori de compilare. Aceste programe sunt abandonate imediat si se pastreaza acele 1/1000 saun 1/10000 de programe care sufera mutatii fara a capata erori de compilare... repetind probcesul acesta de multe ori si folosind destui "indivizi" se pot "evolua" programe... e-adevarat ca iti trebuie niste resurse monumentale.
Concluzie: inainte sa te increzi orbeste intr-o fraza, mai bine studiezi problema cu mai multa atentie.
| QUOTE |
Probably... un termen foarte indragit de evolutionisti. |
Da, pentru ca oamenii de stiinta seriosi, spre deosebire de alte categorii de indivizi, accepta posibilitatea ca se pot insela. De aceea nu spun niciodata "sigur" ci numai "probabil"
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
repetind probcesul acesta de multe ori si folosind destui "indivizi" se pot "evolua" programe. |
Programele nu evolueaza. Programele sunt create.
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Evident, in urma "mutatiilor" apar multe programe care au erori de compilare. |
Si care ar fi speciile actuale care prezinta erori? Imi pot da un exemplu?
Programele initiale sunt generate aleator din instructiuni simple ca adunarea/inmultirea a doua numere. Programele solutie evolueaza din acestea.
Exista indivizi cu erori, nu specii intregi. O eroare nu se propaga asupra unei specii din cauza mecanismului de selectie. Iti pot da zeci de mii de exemple de oameni nascuti cu malformatii. Acestia sunt echivalenti programelor cu erori de compilare.
Exista indivizi cu erori, nu specii intregi. O eroare nu se propaga asupra unei specii din cauza mecanismului de selectie. Iti pot da zeci de mii de exemple de oameni nascuti cu malformatii. Acestia sunt echivalenti programelor cu erori de compilare.
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Exista indivizi cu erori, nu specii intregi. |
Bingo! Exista insa si "erori" calitative care nu se transmit. Tot mecanismul de selectie intervine? Exista si disparitia unor specii superadaptate mediului in care traiesc. Ceea ce ma intriga este insa paralela pe care o faci intre sofware si evolutionism. In cazul programatorilor se porneste de la o idee clara, pentru care se gasesc solutii. In cazul evolutionismului specia se considera adaptabila la fata locului. Daca ursul brun nimereste la Pol el devine alb, pentru camuflaj. Prin ce mister imprumuta ursul culoarea zapezii? Cum stie mutatia genetica sa imprumute EXACT culoarea alba pentru camuflaj? Sa inteleg ca ursii au fost galbeni, rosii, verzi, albastrii si apoi albi, iar albul a ramas in voga pentru ca era un bun camuflaj? Nu prea cred.
Selectia unor programe de computer se face constient, de catre persoane care GANDESC un proces, in care accidentele sunt accidente, insa scopul e unul clar si precis. Insa evolutionismul nu e inteles ca ceva gandit, ci ca un joc al intamplarii in functie de conditiile de mediu.
Daca în programul (perfect functional) al unui calculator induci (prin ce metoda vrei tu) o rata de generare de erori aleatorii, programul se va bloca mai mult ca sigur. Dar având în vedere ca erorile sunt aleatorii, la un moment dat (una la mie, unu la milion, n'are importanta), se pot genera chiar linii de cod valide. Iar programul nu se va mai bloca ci va merge mai departe, si iarasi intervine factorul aleator (unu la mie, unu la un milion) ca o linie de cod astfel rezultata sa fie o îmbunatatire. Imbunatatire care va fi selectata natural, în dauna celorlalte calculatoare care ruleaza înca programul initial, copie exacta, si bineînteles în dauna unei gramezi imense de alte calculatoare care au ajuns la gunoi, erorile dovedindu-se fatale.
Desigur un rationament de probabilistica "unu la un milion" nu e asa usor de imaginat si nici evolutia aleatoare datorata erorilor (mutatiile genetice), dar se pare ca în ciuda acestei greutati unii sesizeaza imediat calculatoarele care ajung la gunoi si le arata îndelung cu degetul.
Si înca ceva, generarea aleatoare de erori nu porneste de la un singur calculator ci de la zeci, sute de milioane de calculatoare deodata, deja sansele ca în sute de mii de ani sa se selecteze pe unul un program mai bun devin mai palpabile (pentru unii). La fel si aparitia unei conjuncturi cu mai multe mutatii favorabile deodata (dar iarasi numai pentru unii, ca pentru altii daca e greu înseamna automat ca e imposibil).
Desigur un rationament de probabilistica "unu la un milion" nu e asa usor de imaginat si nici evolutia aleatoare datorata erorilor (mutatiile genetice), dar se pare ca în ciuda acestei greutati unii sesizeaza imediat calculatoarele care ajung la gunoi si le arata îndelung cu degetul.
Si înca ceva, generarea aleatoare de erori nu porneste de la un singur calculator ci de la zeci, sute de milioane de calculatoare deodata, deja sansele ca în sute de mii de ani sa se selecteze pe unul un program mai bun devin mai palpabile (pentru unii). La fel si aparitia unei conjuncturi cu mai multe mutatii favorabile deodata (dar iarasi numai pentru unii, ca pentru altii daca e greu înseamna automat ca e imposibil).
Un program este gandit sa genereze un proces aleatoriu. Cred ca e cu totul altceva.
Insa intrebarea era alta. Pentru ca o specie sa supravietuiasca are nevoie de mecanisme complexe, nu doar de simple mutatii la intervale mari de timp. Cum explici aceasta problema?
Insa intrebarea era alta. Pentru ca o specie sa supravietuiasca are nevoie de mecanisme complexe, nu doar de simple mutatii la intervale mari de timp. Cum explici aceasta problema?
Complexitatea si simplitatea sunt foarte relative. Raspunsul este cumul de probabilitati. Si nu-i nevoie sa-ti explic asta, e suficient ca mutatii aleatoare au loc zilnic, fiecare având o sansa (mica, mare, simpla, complexa) sa determine o schimbare.
A, si pentru supravietuirea speciei în sine, mutatiile sunt amenintari, nu conditie ca sa supravietuiasca.
A, si pentru supravietuirea speciei în sine, mutatiile sunt amenintari, nu conditie ca sa supravietuiasca.
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
A, si pentru supravietuirea speciei în sine, mutatiile sunt amenintari, nu conditie ca sa supravietuiasca. |
Asta e un aspect important.
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
Si nu-i nevoie sa-ti explic asta, e suficient ca mutatii aleatoare au loc zilnic, fiecare având o sansa (mica, mare, simpla, complexa) sa determine o schimbare. |
Am sa te rog sa-mi explici mai clar. Sa zicem ca ursul polar are la dispozitie trei mutatii care determina culoarea blanii: verde, alb si albastru. Prin ce mister se pastreaza doar a doua varianta? Si cine o pastreaza? Are blana ursului un cod inteligent care spune: albul e culoarea zapezii, deci trebuie sa elimin varianta verde si albastra? Cine hotareste sansele de alegere a unei mutatii?
Daca vorbim de ursul polar la el acasa, la pol, si luam doua exemplare care primesc (sa zicem) doua variante de blana (verde, albastru, ca era deja alb), prin mutatie, ambii au sanse minime sa supravietuiasca, deoarece vor fi vizibili de departe de catre foci si acesta nu le va mai putea prinde si va muri de foame.
Daca vorbim de ursul polar adus în Carpati, trezit cu trei culori de blana, are sansa de selectie acea culoare care îl camufleaza în decor cel mai bine (verde?), astfel încât animalele vânate de el sa se prinda cel mai târziu posibil de prezenta si intentiile lui si astfel sa-i pice prada si sa-i asigure perpetuarea noii lui specii cu blana verde. Actualmente, se pare ca natura a facut ca în Carpati culoarea optima dpdv al camuflajului ursilor sa fie maro.
Selectia naturala o face chiar natura, si nu prin inteligenta sau vointa supranaturala, ci prin mecanismele competitionale ale florei si faunei, care elimina imediat un rebut si pastreaza o reusita (existenta deja sau produsa nou, prin mutatie).
Daca vorbim de ursul polar adus în Carpati, trezit cu trei culori de blana, are sansa de selectie acea culoare care îl camufleaza în decor cel mai bine (verde?), astfel încât animalele vânate de el sa se prinda cel mai târziu posibil de prezenta si intentiile lui si astfel sa-i pice prada si sa-i asigure perpetuarea noii lui specii cu blana verde. Actualmente, se pare ca natura a facut ca în Carpati culoarea optima dpdv al camuflajului ursilor sa fie maro.
Selectia naturala o face chiar natura, si nu prin inteligenta sau vointa supranaturala, ci prin mecanismele competitionale ale florei si faunei, care elimina imediat un rebut si pastreaza o reusita (existenta deja sau produsa nou, prin mutatie).
Am inteles de la bun inceput explicatia logica a notiuni de camuflaj, insa asta nu inseamna obligatoriu evolutionism. Daca natura incearca trei variante de blanuri pentru ursi atunci unde gasim ursii albastrii sau verzi intermediari, prin care aveam dovada ca s-a incercat de la bun inceput cate ceva?
Intrebarea mea era alta. Prin ce mister "vede" blana ursului culoarea alba a zapezii?
Problema evolutionismului e timpul. Daca o specie isi schimba mediul atunci adaptarea ar trebui sa fie brusca. Teoretic poti spune ca ursul brun a devenit alb in milioane de ani, insa intrebam daca timpul de milioane de ani permite si supravietuirea speciei pana cand Mama Natura isi termina incercarie de adaptare. Cum a vanat ursul brun sau verde in imensitatea alba pana a "imprumutat" culoarea zapezii? Cum a reusit sa supravietuiasca?
Intrebarea mea era alta. Prin ce mister "vede" blana ursului culoarea alba a zapezii?
Problema evolutionismului e timpul. Daca o specie isi schimba mediul atunci adaptarea ar trebui sa fie brusca. Teoretic poti spune ca ursul brun a devenit alb in milioane de ani, insa intrebam daca timpul de milioane de ani permite si supravietuirea speciei pana cand Mama Natura isi termina incercarie de adaptare. Cum a vanat ursul brun sau verde in imensitatea alba pana a "imprumutat" culoarea zapezii? Cum a reusit sa supravietuiasca?
| QUOTE |
Webster defines dilemma as a problem "seemingly incapable of a satisfactory solution." The problem for evolutionists is to develop a theory of origins that would account for the intricate design mechanism of biological pollination. Evolutionists believe that in order to attract pollinators, some plants have adapted to bribe insects, birds and other animals with a meal of nectar or pollen. The basic tenet of evolutionary theory is there is no intelligence involved in the process. One cannot have it both ways. Either an intelligent personal Designer planned and executed the process of biological pollination or it just happened to occur in some mindless, wasteful chaotic pipe dream. Let's take a logical look at the possibility of an evolutionary development of biological pollination. In order for the process to work, one must start with a plant that needs pollinating. There is a mutual benefit between plant and pollinator who needs the nutrients the plant offers. If plants were able to reproduce before the pollination process evolved, would a world of survival of the fittest be the environment suited for such a process? If a random chance mutation produced a plant that needed pollinating, would that mutation be the most apt to survive? Absolutely not. The plant would have to share soil, rainfall and nutrients with other plants that were able to reproduce without pollination. These plants would complete their life cycles, bear fruit and crowd out the mutant before the first pollen grain located another plant that had evolved the egg that awaited fertilization. Design of the Pollen Grain Pollen differs from plant to plant. Its macroscopic millions are carried by wind, insects, birds, and other animals. Evolutionists claim that fossilized remains of pollen prove it has remained much the same for 120 million years. In other words, pollen is never used as evidence that long periods of time produce evolutionary changes. When confronted with evolution's violation of the true scientific method that demands observation or repeatability, evolutionists are quick to raise the banner of endless eons of time. But when evolutionists dig a moat of the endless ages between logic and the theory it threatens, remember that pollen has endured unchanged throughout the ages of this imaginary history. Sunflower pollen looks like a spiked ball, while the pollen of the black salsify looks somewhat like a diving bell with pentagon shaped windows. (The roots of some salsify plants are edible.) Dandelion pollen looks more like a knight's weapon than the casing of DNA that grows a child's plaything in a spring meadow. Pollen is so distinctive, it has been used to confirm a murderer was at the scene of a crime; the irrefutable evidence led to his confession. Growth of the Pollen Tube The fertilization of a flower does not take place on the tip of the stigma (see diagram). The life-giving egg is hidden well inside the style of a plant. Evolutionists have made the claim that plants evolved this placement of the egg in order to keep insects from eating the viable part of the plant. The placement of the egg is significant when one considers what the pollen must do to reach it and fertilize the plant. The pollen has the physiological information resident within it to build a tunnel to the egg. It is called a pollen tube. It is macroscopic in size. Pollen tubes grow at different rates, but some have been reported to grow as much as 1.5 inches per hour. A mature grain of pollen consists of three cells, two sperm cells and one vegetative cell. A generative cell forms the sperm cells. In most plants the generative cell completes its division while in the pollen tube. Under a microscope, one can see the cilia of these cells in the cycad known as Zamia bear the unmistakable logarithmic spiral of a chambered nautilus. Self-Incompatibility In order for a seed to grow, it must be fertilized by pollen from another bloom. Scientists readily admit they do not understand how this works altogether, although they have learned there are incompatibility proteins in both the pollen and the stigmas or styles. When proteins from the pollen interact with proteins from the same bloom's stigma or style, fertilization is prevented. Remember, evolutionists say that pollen has remained unchanged for 120 million years. If that is the case, why haven't the plants adapted to stop producing pollen that must be carried to another plant? Why couldn't the plant "learn" to accept its own pollen? That would certainly be at least as easy as learning what kind of nectar or pollen would attract the correct kind of carrier to insure a load of pollen reached a neighboring plant! Preventing Self Pollination Plants have a variety of mechanisms to prevent self fertilization. The wild geranium ripens all of its stamen first. When the pollen from the stamen is all gone, the stigma ripen. In a monoecious plant, one plant (mono) produces both types of blossoms. Some blossoms will have only the stamen (with pollen) and others will have only stigma (with the eggs). The blooms may looks very similar (as in the case of a squash plant) or very dissimilar, as in the case of the hazel tree. On the hazel tree, the stamen is a long catkin (flexible thin tassels several inches long). The stigma is a tiny pink flower-shaped spray on the same tree. The hazel tree is pollinated by the wind. As the catkins wave in the breeze, they scatter the pollen and it sticks on the tiny pink sprays. A dioecious plant has all stamens on one individidual plant and all stigmas on another individual plant (cottonwood, green ash and the box elder trees). What if the plant self pollinates? In experiments with foxtail grass, it was shown that once the pollen was recognized as incompatible, it was rejected and the pollen tube filled again with plant tissue. Incredible as it seems . . . The Indian Balsam plant is an example of the incredible relationship between the pollanator and the plant. An insect enters the balsam to get a drink of nectar. It brushes pollen from stamen that is attached to the bottom of the stigma. The insect that carries away the final load of pollen also carries the stamen away and exposes the stigma, which is then ready to be pollinated by the next visitor. The Dutchman's pipe lures gnats into its large cavernous curving structure with a scent similar to a fungus on which they feed. Once a gnat enters one end of the curved structure, it mistakes the dead-end bottom for the exit because of its brightness. If the unwary gnat is carrying a supply of pollen, the fertilization of the Dutchman's pipe also triggers a mechanism that lowers its vase-like curve, opens it to the light and allows an easy exit for the gnat. In the orchid, the stamen is fused with the style and stigma. The pollinium is a structure of the orchid that combines the anther and the filament into one. The orchid is designed so that one of its petals is a "landing platform." The insect pollinator is compelled to land in a particular spot and and the trip to the nectar orchestrates his pick up of the pollinium. The pollinium accompanies the insect traveler on its next visit to a neighboring orchid where, of course, the strategic location of the landing platform will cause the pollen-laden pollinium to brush the surface of the stigma. If the pollinium of the second orchid has not yet been pulled away by an insect, the stigma is not yet exposed, so pollination will not take place. The color of a flower can give clues to what carrier is involved in the pollination of its plant. Most plants with flowers in the red spectrum are bird pollinated. Insects, who far outnumber birds as pollinators, are more attracted to the blue spectrum. A bee's eyes are sensitive to the ultraviolet spectrum. In fact, the yellow of a marsh marigold is seen as a beautiful iridescent color known as "bee purple." The structure of many flowers is exactly suited to the insect that pollinates them. The butterfly is equipped with a long roll-up tongue that is especially suited to the thin throat of many flowers (the bougainvillea, for example). The gentian plant of South Africa can only be pollinated by a Carpenter Bee which has a particular resonance it uses to vibrate the pollen from the flower it visits. Bees that do not match this resonance cannot pollinate the flower. One would think with the vibration of the pollen, it would be scattered everywhere and self-pollination would be a problem. Not so. The stigma is not receptive until all the pollen is gone. In Conclusion Any study of life yields evidence of the Creator's handiwork. Botany is a feast in this regard. Any parent or teacher who gives time to its study will enrich the lives of the children within their sphere of influence. Charlotte Mason said it best: "Any woman who is likely to spend an hour or two in the society of children, should make herself mistress of this sort of information; the children will adore her for knowing what they want to know, and who knows but she may give its bent for life to some young mind destined to do great things for the world." |
| QUOTE |
| Am inteles de la bun inceput explicatia logica a notiuni de camuflaj, insa asta nu inseamna obligatoriu evolutionism. |
Adaptarea unei specii la mediu prin schimbarea culorii blanii nu e evolutionism?
| QUOTE |
| Daca natura incearca trei variante de blanuri pentru ursi atunci unde gasim ursii albastrii sau verzi intermediari, prin care aveam dovada ca s-a incercat de la bun inceput cate ceva? |
Pai e cam greu sa gasesti putinii ursi cu blana verde si albastra care au existat, având în vedere ca am fost imediat selectati (eliminati).
| QUOTE |
| Intrebarea mea era alta. Prin ce mister "vede" blana ursului culoarea alba a zapezii? |
Nu blana ursului vede culoarea zapezii ci focile vad mai clar alta culoare decât a zapezii, pe fondul alb al zapezii, si devin prada mai dificila.
| QUOTE |
| Problema evolutionismului e timpul. |
Nu e problema, e conditia.
| QUOTE |
| Teoretic poti spune ca ursul brun a devenit alb in milioane de ani, insa intrebam daca timpul de milioane de ani permite si supravietuirea speciei pana cand Mama Natura isi termina incercarie de adaptare. Cum a vanat ursul brun sau verde in imensitatea alba pana a "imprumutat" culoarea zapezii? Cum a reusit sa supravietuiasca? |
Buna întrebare. Nu trebuie însa sa îti imaginezi ca ursul brun s-a dus din prima fix în mijlocul banchizei sa a asteptat un milion de ani sa-si schimbe blana, ca sa poata mânca foci. Au existat pâlcuri de ursi care traiau la limita banchizei, erau bruni si puteau vâna prin paduri si munti fara zapada, si daca se dadeau la focile de pe banchiza n-aveau nici o sansa. Insa la un moment dat, dupa ursul portocaliu, ursul rosu si ursul bleu care au fost eliminati (nici macar în padure nu puteau vâna), a aparut prin mutatie un urs cu blana alba, care spre completa lui mirare a vazut ca daca se duce pe banchiza poate prinde si foci. Probabil ca i-au placut asa de mult focile alea încât s-a carat definitiv din padure, ca sa-si câstige viata la pol. 
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
Nu blana ursului vede culoarea zapezii ci focile vad mai clar alta culoare decât a zapezii, pe fondul alb al zapezii, si devin prada mai dificila. |
E interesant cum Mama Natura tine cu ursul, dar nu tine cu foca. Ma intreb ce camuflaj are o foca neagra pe gheata alba. Sau evolutionismul nu se aplica si la foci?
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
a aparut prin mutatie un urs cu blana alba, care spre completa lui mirare a vazut ca daca se duce pe banchiza poate prinde si foci. |
Nu cred ca am fost inteles bine. Daca prin absurd s-ar naste un urs verde - in genul gainii cu trei picioare - atunci anomalia nu s-ar transmite si generatiilor urmatoare. Intrebarea mea era daca ursul alb aparut accidental a putut transmite genele mutante mai departe inainte de a patrunde in mijlocul intinderilor de zapada.
Din cate se stie cam toate mutatiile genetice actuale sunt anomalii. Ai cateva exemple de mutatii genetice pozitive?
| QUOTE |
The Dynamic Genome The term "evolution" is an oxymoron. The reality of genetic adaptability, doesn't equate with Darwin's fantasy. Every prototype genome possesses inherent genetic adaptability that assures a kaleidoscope of descendant diversity. Some public minds mistakenly confuse the reality of nature's genetic dynamism with evolutionism's make-believe. Human DNA carries 3+ billion base pairs. Two human parents possess the capacity to produce 70 trillion variations in their children. Darwin's Galapagos finches produced offspring endowed with different shaped beaks---but 21st century Galapagos finches still fly as finches! Fruit flies, subjected to laboratory induced mutations, may add or subtract wings and legs but continue producing fruit flies, ad infinitum---never butterflies nor dragonflies! Extrapolation doesn't mend the "flaws" and "holes" of Darwin's "rag of an hypothesis." Big Bang! The origin of matter by an explosion in empty nothingness an alleged fifteen billion years ago baffles. Something from nothing? Billions of cosmic bodies carving predictable orbits originating in an explosion? Since when does a horrendous explosion create order---floating in space? Darwin avoided attempting to explain the origin of inorganic matter or the process of the first appearance of organic life from non-life. Spontaneous Generation Nineteenth century, primitive wisdom mistakenly viewed single-celled, organic life forms as "simple." A blob of protoplasm! In reality, a living cell is vastly more complex than the most sophisticated man-designed mechanism. No human laboratory has duplicated what random chance allegedly accomplished in some still unidentified, "prebiotic soup." No evidence exists that original life defied impossible odds to create itself by spontaneous generation. NEVER!!! Random Chance Odds The odds of random chance generating an ecologically unique environment essential to produce and sustain organic life on Planet Earth is mathematically less likely than 6-billion blindfolded humans simultaneously solving a Rubik cube puzzle---three times in a row. Amino-Acid Building Blocks are Not Ambidextrous A cell's proteins require "left-handed," amino-acid building blocks. DNA & RNA use only "right-handed" building blocks. Natural forms come in a 50-50 mixture. Evolutionism's random chance explains neither the cause nor the discriminating process that mandates selection of left-handed v. right-handed building blocks. Information The specific kind of life reproduced by each genome is shaped by the information packed into the genes of each microscopic cell. Evolutionism does not account for the original source of that information vested in the dynamic genome of evolutionism's first ever cell from its beginning.. Mutations Mutations, genetic mistakes, the alleged engines driving evolutionism, are rarely beneficial. Mutations usually degrade the genome and trigger information loss. These genetic defects do not introduce new information to the gene code. Nor do genetic defects represent an incremental step in a mythical leap to some radical new organism. Variety potential, inherent within the dynamic genome assures genetic adaptability but not some quantum leap to some radically new prototype life. Neo-Darwinism ignores this scientific reality and relies on billions of mutations, combined with natural selection, as the source of every kind of life on earth after that first life cell. Natural Selection Counting on natural selection to combine with mutations to produce the engine of evolutionary change, creates a major league dilemma: the exact opposite results. Thanks to natural selection, mutations tend to be weeded out rather than serve as a conduit for the development of an entirely new life-systems!!! Inflated Time Without mega-chunks of time, evolutionism bites the dust as just another fictional whim. Radiometric dating's anomalous results raise red flags. Washington State's Mount St. Helens blew its top in 1980. Radiometric dating of the event produced conflicted results ranging from 340,000 years before the present to as long ago as 2,800,000 years BP. Assertions as to the age of the earth deserve caveats. Without those mega-chunks of time, mega-evolution qualifies as so much wishful thinking. But with those chunks of time, where are the billions and billions of people that by now would be walking on each other's toes? Two thousand years ago, an estimated 100 million Homo sapiens lived on Planet Earth. Thanks to geometric progression, the numbers have spiked radically with an estimated 6 billion of the human family on hand who welcomed the 21st century! If the earth is even 100,000 years old, where are all the people that would be bursting the seams of the planet if the past can be measured by the present? Abrupt Appearance Contrary to the gradual, incremental "progress toward perfection" conjectured by Darwin's mega-evolution, thousands of fully formed, intelligently designed and irreducibly complex life forms appeared abruptly, simultaneously and world-wide, without persuasive fossil evidence of prior ancestry. This Cambrian Explosion defies the anchor premise of Darwinian conjecture. Stasis Following this across-the-board sudden appearance of thousands of distinctly different kinds of life, descendants of these unique life forms continue to inhabit planet earth, virtually unchanged. Undeterred by mega chunks of deep time conjectured by evolutionism, bacteria continue to generate bacteria, fish produce fish, and apes parent apes. Coelacanths still swim in marine waters and Wollemi pines still grow on land. Missing Transitionals Evolutionism requires billions of incremental steps to bridge the gaping genetic chasms between organic prototypes: single cell-to-fish-to- amphibian-to-reptile-to-bird and mammal and eventually, to-man. After billions of fossil discoveries, where is the evidence of Darwin's "…innumerable transitional forms…"? Certainly not in today's living natural world. As to the miniscule number of fossil forms categorized as "transitional," they represent just another extinct species. So-called "intermediates" carry the label because an evolutionist has declared it, not because of irrefutable proof of genetic linkage as between old bones. Neither homology nor morphology equates genealogy. Irreducible Complexity A partially evolved body part would render any alleged "transitional" severely handicapped. A critter saddled with an appendage half-leg and half-wing couldn't fly or walk efficiently. An incrementally evolving eye would hardly contribute to fitness or survival. Dr. Michael Behe illustrated the problem by referencing a simple mousetrap with a single missing part---no mouse need fear, the trap couldn't function! Entropy The second law of thermodynamics doesn't track with Darwin's speculative "progress toward perfection." Given 4.55 billion years, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics impacts the precise opposite of what evolution requires. Entropy's deterioration and decline is the inevitable consequence in nature. Homo sapiens age, grow weak and die; trees lose their leaves and die; cars rust; buildings crumble; mountains erode. Cataclysm Many extinct species disappeared abruptly, victims of violent, hydraulic cataclysm, rather than from the encroachment of newly-evolving descendants eliminating "inferior" ancestors as per Darwin's speculations. Numerous surviving species, still living today, escaped extinction, showing little modification from their fossil ancestors. |
| QUOTE |
| E interesant cum Mama Natura tine cu ursul, dar nu tine cu foca. Ma intreb ce camuflaj are o foca neagra pe gheata alba. Sau evolutionismul nu se aplica si la foci? |
Imi pare rau ca mi-am pierdut timpul sa-ti explic un fenomen doar ca sa cauti nod în papura. Era doar un exemplu. Foca are alte aptitudini pentru care a fost selectata natural, vrei sa plângem acum pentru fiecare animal mâncat de etajul superior al lantului trofic si sa negam evolutia pentru ca natura nu tine cu el la un moment dat?
| QUOTE |
| Daca prin absurd s-ar naste un urs verde - in genul gainii cu trei picioare - atunci anomalia nu s-ar transmite si generatiilor urmatoare. |
Ba da, se poate transmite, asta e în functie de felul mutatiei. Daca a avut loc înainte de fecundare, descendentii vor fi tot gaini cu trei picioare. Daca a avut loc dupa stadiul embrionar, descendentii vor avea doua picioare (spre mirarea parintilor) .
.| QUOTE |
| Intrebarea mea era daca ursul alb aparut accidental a putut transmite genele mutante mai departe inainte de a patrunde in mijlocul intinderilor de zapada. |
Da, daca a gasit o ursoaica pe placul lui. 
| QUOTE |
| Din cate se stie cam toate mutatiile genetice actuale sunt anomalii. Ai cateva exemple de mutatii genetice pozitive? |
Da, de exemplu mutatia genetica aparuta la om acum sute de mii de ani, care i-a conferit populatiei respective o culoare închisa a pielii. Negrii din Africa rezista mai bine la caldura datorita acestei caracteristici, de altfel se si vede ca au fost selectati în dauna rasei albe (înaintea migratiilor recente, bineînteles).
Insa un exemplu evident de mutatie benefica (relativ, o sa vezi de ce) este o boala genetica numita "anemia sickle - sicklemia", în care este afectata structura hemoglobinei, iar hematiile iau forma de semiluna. Mutatia se estimeaza ca a avut loc acum 8000 ani (deci f. recent la scara evolutionista) iar purtatorii sunt afectati în sensul unei anemii moderate (care nu pune în joc viata respectivului), dar sunt protejati de malarie (aceasta poate afecta doar hematiile sanatoase). Deoarece se transmite genetic, în Africa ecuatoriala, lânga zone mlastinoase, vei întâlni aproape numai purtatori ai acestei boli, selectati natural deoarece cei sanatosi au fost decimati de boala, iar cei bolnavi nu au fost afectati de aceeasi malarie.
Ciudata genetica asta, nu?
Insa un exemplu evident de mutatie benefica (relativ, o sa vezi de ce) este o boala genetica numita "anemia sickle - sicklemia", în care este afectata structura hemoglobinei, iar hematiile iau forma de semiluna. Mutatia se estimeaza ca a avut loc acum 8000 ani (deci f. recent la scara evolutionista) iar purtatorii sunt afectati în sensul unei anemii moderate (care nu pune în joc viata respectivului), dar sunt protejati de malarie (aceasta poate afecta doar hematiile sanatoase). Deoarece se transmite genetic, în Africa ecuatoriala, lânga zone mlastinoase, vei întâlni aproape numai purtatori ai acestei boli, selectati natural deoarece cei sanatosi au fost decimati de boala, iar cei bolnavi nu au fost afectati de aceeasi malarie.
Ciudata genetica asta, nu?
Am citit cam zece pagini de posturi si am constatat ca o problema o constituie invatatura Bisericii cu privire la creatie - cine este Adam, Eva dar nu cine si cum ia creat. Poate parerea unui preot ortodox este binevenita - Preot prof. dr. Ilarion V. Felea in "Religia culturii" scria:
Se vorbeste despre eternitatea materiei si a lumii, dar observatia, experienta si stiinta ne arata ca materia imbatraneste, si tot ce imbartaneste are o tinerete la inceput si o moarte la sfarsit. Lumea nu a fost totdeauna asa cum se infatiseaza acum. Astazi lumea este "cosmos", ceea ce inseamna frumusete si ordine. Inainte de cosmos, lumea a fost "haos".
Imainte de a exista lumea asa cum este, a existat in ideea, in ratiunea atotstiutoare si in vointa atotputernica a lui Dumnezeu, ca planul in mintea si in vointa arhitectului. Ratiunea divina, gandirea creatoare a lumii spirituale si materiale, in filosofia greaca si in Evanghelia crestina se numeste Logos, Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu. "Cuvantul era la Dumnezeu si Dumnezeu era Cuvantul..." El se naste din Dumnezeu, cum se naste cuvantul din gandire. Vointa divina, energie miscatoare si forta insufletitoare a lumii spirituale si materiale se numeste Pnevma, Duhul lui Dumnezeu. El purcede din Dumnezeu, intocmai cum purcede fapta din vointa. Logosul se naste, Pnevma purcede din Dumnezeu-Tatal, si sunt una cu El. Dumnezeu creaza lumea: spiritul si materia, cerul si pamantul, prin puterea Cuvantului Sau atotintelept si prin energia vointei Sale atotputernice. Asa s-au creat toate in ordinea pe care o constata si stiinta.
Cat despre teoria evolutionista consider ca are multe "verigi lipsa". Incepand cu probabilitatea foarte mica de aparitie spontana a unei celule vii. Sa spunem totusi ca toate conditiile au fost indeplinite si a aparut o celula vie. Dar de la o singura celula la complexitatea unei reptile este cale lunga. Oare de ce in prezent organismele unicelulare nu se "unesc" pentru a forma o fiinta complexa, capabile sa ia singura decizii.
In privinta mutatiilor intamplatoare, si a selectiei naturale care a dus la aparitia de noi specii am o dilema. Sa zicem ca a avut loc o mutatie genetica si a rezultat un exemplar cu trasaturi diferite. Oare acest exemplar ar fi fost acceptat in randul populatiei "normale", nu ar fi fost el indepartat si astfel sansele de transmitere a noilor caracteristici minime.
Se vorbeste despre eternitatea materiei si a lumii, dar observatia, experienta si stiinta ne arata ca materia imbatraneste, si tot ce imbartaneste are o tinerete la inceput si o moarte la sfarsit. Lumea nu a fost totdeauna asa cum se infatiseaza acum. Astazi lumea este "cosmos", ceea ce inseamna frumusete si ordine. Inainte de cosmos, lumea a fost "haos".
Imainte de a exista lumea asa cum este, a existat in ideea, in ratiunea atotstiutoare si in vointa atotputernica a lui Dumnezeu, ca planul in mintea si in vointa arhitectului. Ratiunea divina, gandirea creatoare a lumii spirituale si materiale, in filosofia greaca si in Evanghelia crestina se numeste Logos, Cuvantul lui Dumnezeu. "Cuvantul era la Dumnezeu si Dumnezeu era Cuvantul..." El se naste din Dumnezeu, cum se naste cuvantul din gandire. Vointa divina, energie miscatoare si forta insufletitoare a lumii spirituale si materiale se numeste Pnevma, Duhul lui Dumnezeu. El purcede din Dumnezeu, intocmai cum purcede fapta din vointa. Logosul se naste, Pnevma purcede din Dumnezeu-Tatal, si sunt una cu El. Dumnezeu creaza lumea: spiritul si materia, cerul si pamantul, prin puterea Cuvantului Sau atotintelept si prin energia vointei Sale atotputernice. Asa s-au creat toate in ordinea pe care o constata si stiinta.
Cat despre teoria evolutionista consider ca are multe "verigi lipsa". Incepand cu probabilitatea foarte mica de aparitie spontana a unei celule vii. Sa spunem totusi ca toate conditiile au fost indeplinite si a aparut o celula vie. Dar de la o singura celula la complexitatea unei reptile este cale lunga. Oare de ce in prezent organismele unicelulare nu se "unesc" pentru a forma o fiinta complexa, capabile sa ia singura decizii.
In privinta mutatiilor intamplatoare, si a selectiei naturale care a dus la aparitia de noi specii am o dilema. Sa zicem ca a avut loc o mutatie genetica si a rezultat un exemplar cu trasaturi diferite. Oare acest exemplar ar fi fost acceptat in randul populatiei "normale", nu ar fi fost el indepartat si astfel sansele de transmitere a noilor caracteristici minime.
| QUOTE (Figaro @ Sep 3 2003, 04:30 PM) |
| Intrebarea mea era alta. Prin ce mister "vede" blana ursului culoarea alba a zapezii? |
Intrebarea aceasta, Figaro, este similara cu "Ce este omul?", intrebare la care de milenii se cauta raspunsul. Din ce motive stiintifice, naturale ori obscure creaturile stiu sa-si conserve si perpetueze specia, cum de cameleonul reuseste sa imprumute din hainele mediului inconjurator vor ramane sub semnul misterului. Nu se poate gasi un raspuns concret la acestea, insa stiinta oricum va gasi o teza apropiata cu realitatea.
La fel cum matematica se bazeaza pe ipoteze false de pe urma carora se deduc (potentiale) realitati, probabil ca la fel si in domeniul biologiei oamenii de stiinta vor gasi cheia edificarii enigmelor naturale. Insa pana vom elucida mistere ce depasesc o durata de evolutie de peste zeci si sute de milioane de ani, mai intai ar trebui sa ne abatem atentia chiar asupra propriei ramificatii evolutive, deoarece nici pana azi nu s-au gasit dovezile mult asteptate care sa ateste ca Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis este ultima etapa catre Homo Sapiens Sapiens, omul de azi. Exista chiar dovezi care sa adanceasca ipoteza susamintita, prin aceea ca s-au descoperit urme arheologice conform carora omul din neandertal ar fi coexistat cu cel sapiens, din multe zone populate de acestia, homo sapiens fiind chiar alungati ori omorati. Drept marturie, ca dovezi oarecum circumstantiale, stau gropile comune gen cimitir, in care s-au gasit in pozitii ce denota incrancenare ca intr-o lupta diversi hominizi; si se pare ca neandertalii, mai robusti, claditi pentru un mediu mai ostil, erau in castig. Soarta a decis, insa, ca amandoua speciile sa imparta acelasi loc de veci. Diferente majore intre cele doua etape evolutive catre omul de azi nu au existat, consternand stiinta din nou. Capacitatea craniana nu prezinta diferente majore, doar la fizic intalnindu-se o constructie diferita intre homo sapiens neanderthalensis si homo sapiens sapiens.
--------
AVE!
--------
Bine ai venit la Han, DaC!
Figaro, nu ne-ai spus de ce nu a pus creatorul caini in Australia si marsupiale in alte locuri in afara de Australia... inca mai astept un raspuns
| QUOTE ("Mi_) |
Daca a avut loc înainte de fecundare, descendentii vor fi tot gaini cu trei picioare. |
No comment.
Mi_, se pare ca tu confunzi o specie cu o rasa. Ursul alb este o variatiei a speciei in cazua, dupa cum acelasi lucru se intampla si cu rasele umane, dar a sustine ca o broasca se transforma in cal pe parcusul a milioane de ani mi se pare absurd.
| QUOTE |
Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? Are mutations responsible for evolution from amoeba to man? Evolutionists have ascribed wondrous powers to mutations, the ability to create new body parts and new animals (amoeba to man evolution). In reality, mutations are extremely dangerous and are wreaking havoc on the human race and other living creatures. It is held by evolutionists that genetic mutations are an avenue of positive change in living organisms. For example, Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, seeks to establish a godless cosmos of chance in which the appearance of design in life has occurred by accident, by the incremental accumulation of positive changes in genes. His evidence relating to biochemical genetics, however, consists of theoretical models of little relevance to the real world. Thus, the question remains: What do we actually see in the world around us when we use scientific tools of measurement and observation? Do we see this "blind watchmaker" at work in any real-life examples, or do we see the opposite? The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the poverty of evolutionary theory to explain the facts in one well-researched area of biology--that is, the area of human genetics. It will show how the facts unearthed by this research show mutations to be, not a "blind watchmaker," but more truthfully analogous to a "blind gunman." The human mutation problem is bad and getting worse. Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations. This review will only scratch the surface of the many recent discoveries. Still, the examples cited will illustrate a compelling general principle which extends throughout this expanding field. What are mutations? Mutations are defined as random changes in cellular DNA. They change the genetic code for amino acid sequence in proteins, thus introducing biochemical errors of varying degrees of severity. Mutations have been classified as deletions (loss of DNA bases), insertions (gain of DNA bases), and missense or nonsense (substitution of a DNA base). If the mutations affect germ cells (female ova and male spermatozoa), they will be passed to all the cells of the offspring, and affect future generations. Such mutations are called "germline mutations," and are the cause of inherited diseases. Mutations also occur in other populations of body cells and will accumulate throughout a lifetime without being passed to the offspring. These are called "somatic mutations," and are important in the genesis of cancers and other degenerative disease processes. What are the real world results of mutations? (examples) To survey the mutation problem, it will be helpful to consider a few examples of how mutations work their biochemical havoc. Cholesterol-related mutations In the cardiovascular system, it has long been recognized that a high circulating cholesterol content in the blood is associated with degeneration and narrowing of large and medium-sized arteries. this process is called "atherosclerosis" and is a leading cause of heart disease. More recently, a genetic biochemical defect causing hereditary high blood levels of cholesterol has been discovered and is know as "familial hypercholesterolemia" (FH). This disorder has been traced to mutation of a gene coding a transmembrane receptor protein. The gene is on chromosome 19 and has about 45,000 base pairs with 18 exons. Its encoded receptor protein is anchored in the membranes of all body cells, and allows them to capture and take in "packages" of fats and cholesterol (called "low-density" lipoproteins," or LDL) that are manufactured in the liver. The receptor protein has 772 amino acids which form five functional domains. At least 350 different disease-producing mutations of the cholesterol receptor have been described. These may be classified according to the affected functional domain. Examples of mutations in the cholesterol-related LDL receptor gene. Shown are the 18 exons of the gene and various combinations of known mutations, classes 1-5. (This illustration is adapted from a more detailed diagram in J.L. Goldstein and M.S. Brown, "Familial Hypercholesterolemia," in C.R. Scriver , A.L. Beaudet, W.S. Sly, and D. Valle, editors, The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease, 6th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989), p. 1232.) In the first class of mutation, little or no receptor is synthesized at all. In the second, receptor protein is synthesized, but does not take its proper place in the cell membrane. Third, receptor protein is present in the membrane, but does not link with the LDL packages. Fourth, the receptor protein is unable to stay in the membrane. Fifth, receptor protein is present in the membrane and links with the LDL packages, but does not bring them into the cell. None of these are beneficial. All body cells need cholesterol for their membranes, so a certain amount is necessary and good. However, defects of this receptor protein result in high blood levels of cholesterol through a feedback loop. When the receptor protein is not working, the cells keep on sending the signals for more cholesterol packages, and the liver complies. In homozygotes, cholesterol levels are three to five times the proper level, while heterozygotes have about twice the proper level. This results in rapid atherosclerosis, sometimes resulting in fatal heart disease in childhood. Cystic fibrosis mutation A second example is a common genetic disease, cystic fibrosis (CF). This multisystem disease cripples children and leads to early death. It damages the lungs, digestive organs and, in the male, the vas deferens (spermatic duct). Its differing effects, from mild to severe, are in part due to different types of mutation affecting one key gene. This biochemical basis is the mutation of a gene coding for a transmembrane protein regulating chloride ion transport across the cell membrane. This gene has 250,000 base pairs and is called the CFTR gene. It codes for a transmembrane protein of 1,480 amino acids. Research on this gene showed a mutation, delta-F508, occurring in most clinical cases of CF. This mutation is a deletion of three nucleotides resulting in loss of phenylalanine residue at position 508 on the peptide chain. Normal DNA . . . T ATC ATC TTT GGT GTT Cystic Fibrosis DNA . . . T ATC AT- --T GGT GTT In addition to this fairly common mutation, over 200 other mutations of this gene have been described. Just a few of these are associated with the more severe forms of the disease, which lead to early death from lung infections. Other mutations or combinations of mutations lead to lesser disease states, like chronic pancreatitis or male infertility, but again, no beneficial results have been observed. Cancer As a broad example of disease produced by acquired somatic mutations, let's consider cancer. The link between carcinogenesis and genetic mutation has become much clearer. Carcinogens (agents causing cancer) also tend to be powerful mutagens (agents producing mutations). The discovery of "oncogenes" and "tumor suppressor genes" has shown how this relationship works. Basically, these genes are concerned with regulation of the cell cycle. The oncogenes drive the process of cell replication forward, while the tumor suppressor genes hold it back. Both are necessary for proper cell function and growth. But mutational damage to components of both systems may produce an uncontrolled growth of cells, which is cancer. This phenomenon may be compared to a car in which there is damage to the gas pedal, causing it be be stuck "on," while the brakes are damaged at the same time. These mutations are usually acquired over decades, so cancer is mainly a disease of old age. However, studies have shown that inherited germline mutations of key oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes can predispose persons to development of cancers in childhood. Examples of this include childhood cancers like retinoblastoma, as well as familial cases of more common cancers (e.g., breast or colon) that have been linked to specific mutant genes (e.g., the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for familial breast cancer, and the APC gene for familial colonic polyps and cancers). Do mutations have any positive results? With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent. Sickle cell anemia The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection. Cancerous cellular degeneration Even more strangely, the process of cancerous cellular degeneration has been vied as a Darwinian form of mutation! Again, this idea fails to hold up under scrutiny. Malignant cells can hardly be considered to be an improvement over their normal counterparts. They are "fitter" only in their replicative activity, but even this is just an exaggerated use of already existing cellular machinery. In many other important ways, they have degenerative features. They show no gain of information, but generally a loss or disorder of functions. In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found. Conclusions What conclusions may be drawn from these few examples, and countless others like them? First, that the human mutation problem is bad and getting worse. Second, that it is unbalanced by any detectable positive mutations. To summarize, recent research has revealed literally tens of thousands of different mutations affecting the human genome, with a likelihood of many more yet to be characterized. These have been associated with thousands of diseases affecting every organ and tissue type in the body. The medical descriptions of many forms of inherited disease have a common theme: 80-90% of cases have affected individuals in the family tree, but the remaining cases are sporadic--the result of ever increasing numbers of new mutations. In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found. Mutations behave like a "blind gunman," a destroyer who shoots his deadly "bullets" randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery. Instead of a "blind watchmaker," the mutations behave like a "blind gunman," a destroyer who shoots deadly "bullets" randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery. Sometimes they kill. Thus, the "blind watchmaker" is an illusion. Worse than that, it is the intellectual and moral equivalent of an idol--an invention of the imagination, to which superhuman powers are falsely ascribed. Decay and degeneration This research affirms the reality of the past Biblical curse of decay and degeneration on the world of nature, as stated in both the Old and New Testaments. It also highlights the grim reality of the future hopelessness of the human race without the saving intervention of God and His Christ. Mutations continue to slowly harm us. Each generation has a slightly more disordered genetic constitution than the preceding one, and no amount of eugenics can reverse this process of decay. Gene therapy may mask the effects, but it will not reverse the underlying degenerative process. Mutations will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish. A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish. The problem is like a large book, written with perfect grammar in the beginning, but with random letter substitutions introduced at an ongoing rate. The book will still be readable for some time, but it will eventually lose all sense. Just as the universe is projected to reach a state of maximum entropy, so also the human race is condemned to a degenerative death, not just as individuals, but as a whole. In conclusion, the Christian hope stands as the only light in the darkness. Only the creative and regenerating work of Christ, as shown in His creation of all things (John 1:3), His miraculous healings, and in His resurrection from the dead, offers humankind true hope for the future. References Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (W.W. Norton and Co., 1987). Lubert Stryer, Biochemistry, 3rd edition (W.H. Freeman and Co., 1998). C. Koch and N. Hoiby, "The Pathogenesis of Cystic Fibrosis," The Lancet, Volume 341 (1993). Friedman Cohn, et al., "Idiopathic Chronic Pancreatitis and Mutations of the Cystic Fibrosis Gene," The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 339 (1998). Robert Weinberg, "Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressor Genes," CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Volume 44, Number 3 (1994). Felix Mitelman, "Chromosomes, Genes, and Cancer," CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Volume 44, No. 3 (1994). J. Defasche and J. Kastelein, "Molecular Epidemiology of Familial Hypercholesterolemia," The Lancet, Volume 352 (1998). Robbins, Cotran and Kumar, The Pathologic Basis of Disease, 5th edition (Philadephia: W.R. Saunders Co., 1994). [ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ] |
...
| QUOTE |
KANGAROOS - Where do they come from? Why do they hop? Did they evolve from some other animal? Kangaroos are the symbol of Australia. They adorn its postage stamps, coat-of-arms, coinage, and even its major international airline. At the zoo or in their natural habitat of Australia (and New Guinea), they remain the most recognized and obvious of Australia’s fauna. Their faces, the way they carry their young in a pouch, their phenomenal leaping power, and their deadly ‘karate kicking’ have long intrigued people. The whole family is best known as the Macropodidae—literally the ‘big-footed’ family. This includes not just the six largest living species commonly called ‘kangaroos’, but also a further 48 species found in Australia alone, and another 13 found in New Guinea—67 modern species in all. The range of two Australian species, the agile wallaby and the red-legged pademelon, spills into New Guinea as well. The term ‘modern’ is applied because this vast empire was once much greater, with over 100 species in Australia alone.1 The term ‘wallaby’ is applied to those species where the adult male has a body mass less than about 20 kg (44 lbs) and feet less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) long. However, scientists can recognize no major anatomical difference between these and kangaroos. Kangaroos’ superb design, their sophisticated reproductive methods and their amazing, energy-efficient locomotion did not come by any evolutionary process. For example, unless the pouch and the joey’s ability to find it were fully functional, they would have left no offspring. They varied enormously in size. The tiny, scampering musky rat-kangaroo still lives in the tropical rain-forests of northern Queensland (Australia). However, the massive, blunt-faced Procoptodon is extinct. Three basic size ranges are recognized today. At the other end of the scale from the six large types mentioned above are the rat/rabbit-sized bettongs, potoroos and rat-kangaroos. In between are the tree kangaroos (a specialized group comprising nine species that live and move about in the trees), and those commonly called wallabies. Kangaroo Reproduction Why the pouch? In the desert species, carrying the baby in the pouch is convenient for the female, who may travel many miles for fresh food and water. The youngster stands a greater chance of survival because it does not have to keep up with her and is tucked away from predators. During prolonged drought, kangaroos stop breeding. In some species, a doe [the female] is able to delay the development of a fertilized egg inside her until an older joey dies or vacates the pouch. This remarkable phenomenon occurs in the red kangaroo, the eastern grey kangaroo, the common wallaroo (euro), the brush-tailed bettong, and several of the larger wallabies. It has also been noted in the honey possum and some non-marsupial mammals such as bats and seals.2 Another incredible aspect is that the doe can determine the sex of her offspring. How she does this is unknown, but she tends to put off bearing males until she is older. Males move away after about two years, but females stay with their mothers longer and benefit from ongoing support.3 A doe is nearly always pregnant. From sexual maturity to death, she is rarely without three offspring — an embryo in the womb, a joey in her pouch, and a larger youngster at her heels. The joey is born after a gestation period of about 35 days (depending on the species) and in the largest species is the size of a human thumb nail. In the smallest, it is only the size of a rice grain. Naked, blind and deaf, it must make its way unaided from the birth canal to the pouch. All going well, the climb will take less than 10 minutes. The joey can survive only a few minutes unless it reaches the pouch and attaches to one of the four nipples. Once there, its mouth swells on the nipple so that it cannot be removed without injury. A ring of strong muscles, similar to human lips, seals off the opening to the pouch to protect the joey from bouncing out, and keeps the pouch waterproof if mother goes for a swim.4 After three months, the developed joey emerges from the pouch to make short trips in the outside world. However, it will return to the pouch to suckle and sleep until eight months old. How fast are kangaroos? Why do kangaroos hop? Over the years, scientists have put forward theories concerning the hows and whys of kangaroo locomotion. As yet, none has fully explained every aspect. Hopping appears to be more energy-efficient than running or galloping. The faster kangaroos hop, the less energy they use for the same distance. Treadmill studies have shown that kangaroos maintain a constant number of hops per minute. Regardless of how much the treadmill speeds up, they simply take longer and longer hops. Kangaroos function much like bouncing balls. A ball will bounce a number of times without a fresh input of energy. Every time it hits the ground, some of the energy is shifted to the rubber, stored there, then recycled in an elastic bounce. Jumping kangaroos store 70% of their energy in their tendons, compared to running humans, who can store and reuse only about 20%.4 A hopping kangaroo also uses less energy to breathe than one standing still. Part of the secret lies in the way the abdominal organs ‘flop’ within the kangaroo’s body. Instead of using muscle power, air is pushed out of the lungs by the impact of the organs against the diaphragm at each landing. Efficient travel is very beneficial to arid-dwellers such as the Red and Western grey kangaroos, the Tammar wallaby and the euro, which may need to travel long distances between water and feed. However, many species inhabit timbered country, with abundant food and regular rainfall. Evolved from possums? The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums) during the so-called Oligocene epoch some 30 million years ago.5 However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests).6 If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, ‘after their kind’. A stunning example of this is the modern rock-wallabies. When John Gould first made notes of these animals last century he mentioned only six species. Later ten species were counted, and now a total of 15 are recognized. Current research is indicating that these wallabies are still splitting into new species.7 However, such instances of one group ‘splitting’ into more groups is not evolution, as Creation magazine has pointed out repeatedly. The reason is that no new genetic information arises during such events. Creationists have postulated that such speciation must have happened many times after the Flood, as populations of creatures separated by valleys or mountain ranges have adapted to environmental conditions within their territories. Some of the original population’s genes enable their owners to survive in their particular environments, while other genes are lost to such natural selection. However, all the genes were present in the original population. Each ‘daughter’ population carries somewhat less of this information, so is less able to respond to future environmental changes.8 They are all still rock-wallabies, and these changes did not take millions of years. In fact, seeing such ‘adaptive radiation’ happen so quickly is a great boon to creationist models. It shows how there would have been ample time since Noah’s Flood for all known kangaroo types to have come from one or a very few original kinds.9 Evolutionists explain the wide variety of kangaroos and their specialised survival methods as millions of years of trial and effort, chance mutation and selection. However, kangaroos’ superb design, their sophisticated reproductive methods and their amazing, energy-efficient locomotion did not come by any evolutionary process. For example, unless the pouch and the joey’s ability to find it were fully functional, they would have left no offspring. Australia’s extinct giants Australia once had many marsupials much larger than those remaining today. The ‘giant wombat’ Diprotodon is probably the best-known of these. The giant kangaroo Procoptodon could stand three metres (ten feet) tall. They (and also a non-marsupial, the bird Genyornis, a larger version of the emu) are collectively called Australia’s extinct ‘megafauna.’ What happened to all of these? Many have ‘devolved’ down to smaller representatives. For instance, today’s red kangaroos and Tasmanian devils are much smaller than their fossil counterparts. A recent find at Cuddie Springs in New South Wales, of human tools together with the bones of some of these megafauna, raises the suspicion that people helped drive them to extinction, which of course is no surprise for creationists. Tests have confirmed that some blood is still present on the tools, which suggests that it was probably nowhere near as long ago as evolutionists say. |
| QUOTE |
THE HORSE In 1841, the earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse. In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks. The question is: "Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?" The simple answer is "No". While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading. So what's the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution? If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus". In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one? There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other. My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said: "I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...". I agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall. |
Chiar am citit toata prostia aia in speranta ca o sa vad ceva interesant... m-am inselat. Nu e nici un raspuns acolo la intrebarea mea "De ce nu sunt canguri in Mexic si pisici in Australia?" In schimb apare urmatoarea fraza:
| QUOTE |
Evolutionists explain the wide variety of kangaroos and their specialised survival methods as millions of years of trial and effort, chance mutation and selection. However, kangaroos’ superb design, their sophisticated reproductive methods and their amazing, energy-efficient locomotion did not come by any evolutionary process. |
Imi place cum se pune problema! Adica, argumentul din estetica: un lucru este frumos deci nu a aparut ca urmare a mutatiilor intimplatoare... inteligent, ce sa zic.
| QUOTE |
For example, unless the pouch and the joey’s ability to find it were fully functional, they would have left no offspring. |
Si iata si pseudo-argumentul lor. Ei bine, desi nu sunt specialst, as putea spune ca lucrurile nu stau tocmai asa. Mai degraba progeniturile cangurilor fara "buzunar" ar fi rezistat mult mai greu la intemperii. Chiar ei zic un pic mai sus:
| QUOTE |
In the desert species, carrying the baby in the pouch is convenient for the female, who may travel many miles for fresh food and water. The youngster stands a greater chance of survival because it does not have to keep up with her and is tucked away from predators |
Deci nu inseamna ca n-ar supravietui fara buzunar ci ca ar supravietui mult mai greu.
| QUOTE |
| Figaro: Mi_, se pare ca tu confunzi o specie cu o rasa. Ursul alb este o variatiei a speciei in cazua, dupa cum acelasi lucru se intampla si cu rasele umane, dar a sustine ca o broasca se transforma in cal pe parcusul a milioane de ani mi se pare absurd. |
Ti-am raspuns la întrebarile care mi le-ai pus. Nu ai avut nici o reactie legata de raspunsuri ci ai început sa schimbi subiectul. Sper ca informatia ti-a fost de folos. Mie mi se par alte lucruri absurde.
Nici viteza ta de reactie nu e foarte prompta. Deocamdata nu ai disecat in amanunt nici unul din articolele postate de mine. Ca de pilda acesta:
| QUOTE |
Volume 8, No 1, Spring 1998 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTIONISM Ümit Dericioglu Introduction It is important to make a sound logical assessment of the methods used in advancing a theory. The axioms of a theory need not be self-evident. However, they should not be mutually contradictory. A good theory should explain the unexplained before, in a way which is not arbitrary and should predict unknown phenomena. The process of deduction leading to explanations and predictions should be done with sound logic devoid of contradictions and fallacies. It should also be remembered that theories or new ideas proposed by scientists are not independent of the dominant world views or philosophies of their time. The Underlying Philosophy Evolutionary ideas did not start with Darwin. There were attempts before to explain how the living world came to be through some evolutionary processes. Lamarckism, the theory of inheritance of acquired characters was one such attempt. What was common among the evolutionary ideas including Darwinism, was the naturalist belief which still prevails in science today. Scientists believe that every natural event has natural cause(s). Although this belief itself can never be proven true through experimental sciences, it is believed that scientific research would not be possible if we stopped asking for an explanation, by attributing it to a supernatural or metaphysical cause. In addition to the fact that an infinite regression of cause and effect is not logically possible, this naturalist presupposition is not even necessary for scientific research. Ironically, evolutionism based on naturalism can even hinder the research possibilities, as this will be shown below. What was different in Darwinism, however, from the other evolutionary ideas was the concept of "survival of the fittest" which had begun as "survival of the strongest" and ended up as "natural selection". Interestingly almost all of men who propounded some idea of natural selection, in the first half of 19th century were British. Darwin's and Wallace's views reflected the widespread belief of their time in their country, in the progress through competition.[1] Russian zoologist, Pyotr Kropotkin [2] who was a staunch Darwinist volunteered to serve in the military in Siberia, in order to observe the struggle for the resources among the animals for survival. What he found instead was harmony and cooperation which later he depicted in his famous book Mutual Aid. It was obvious that Darwinian picture of nature did not fit the reality. Natural Selection In Neo-Darwinism, the central feature of selection is the differential reproduction. Natural selection occurs at population level, not at individual level. A part of population with advantageous trait(s) which manage to survive under otherwise difficult conditions pass their genes onto their progeny. They thus render their offspring dominant in the populations of future generations. Since the early days of Darwinism, a very serious objection has persisted: Natural selection is a tautologous concept. In other words, it means those which can survive survive and pass their advantageous traits which enabled them to survive to their offspring. The tautology is obvious here. The concept of natural selection does not say anything new. The most important pillar of Darwinism is logically defective! In response to this criticism, evolutionists claim that the question is not whether natural selection is a tautology but whether it is the guiding force of evolution. In other words, does the evolution occur in a particular environment as a result of natural selection? According to Hull, a lack of reference to environment deprives the theory of its empirical content.[3] Yet the tautology is still there. Besides, the natural selection is still hardly empirical. How shall we know what advantageous or deleterious mutations an organism might develop? With what probability? Since we need to take the relationship with environment into account, how do we decide whether a certain environmental condition is fatal for one part of a population while it is not for another? From the moment we know that there is a trait for an otherwise fatal condition, the tautology is there again. Before the trait and condition come about we cannot predict them. Once they occur, there is nothing new to know. Some evolutionists regarded the natural selection as the sole cause of evolution while some completely rejected it likening to the ill-fated phlogiston.[4] In fact, it is even worse a concept than phlogiston. Phlogiston had been eventually discredited in experiments. Natural selection, however, due to its tautological nature, can never be proven wrong. Indeed, natural selection provides explanations or plausible speculations for everything like phlogiston did. It is a panacea to explain the order and purpose in organisms without resorting to teleology. However, it is a concept which did not contribute to science. On the contrary, with its phlogiston-like all-encompassing explanations, it has been the weakest point of Darwinism. Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism) with a logically defective and unscientific concept such as natural selection as an important pillar has been hardly a theory. Perhaps it was a poor attempt which was hoped to pave way to a successful theory of origins some day. Avoiding The Real Issue Evolutionists always considered the mutations capable of providing endless combinations, a viable few of which to be selected generation after generation, thus resulting in substantial changes and novelties in organisms. However, the real scientific issue was the nature of the mutations. Were they really random? Were there limits to the changes by mutations? In other words, were the changes a possible manifestation of limited genetic potential? Actually, nobody knows if the genes can lead to endless possibilities. This was just an assumption by evolutionists. According to them, when combined with very long time and filter of natural selection genes are capable of generating many highly ordered and sophisticated systems. A cautious reader will see the fallacious reasoning here: an endless random variant generator such as genes plus a sieve as natural selection, given enough time is capable of generating any existing system. By using the same fallacious logic one can explain anything one wants. For example, the origin of life before the genes were formed can also be explained. However, this is not science, but only an assumption of evolutionist.[5] The fallacious reasoning of evolutionists is a good example of how naturalist philosophy may lead to unscientific claims contrary to the widespread belief that science is only possible with naturalist presuppositions. The Definition of Species The lack of a spatio-temporally independent definition of species presents a problem in evolutionism. For example, mass is the resisting capability of matter to force in Newtonian physics. The definition is always the same, regardless of time and space in question. Since the publication of The Origin of Species the evolutionists have been speaking of the evolution of species without being able to give a clear, unproblematic definition of "species". A very popular and widely accepted definition of species is that organisms that can interbreed are of the same species. An interesting result of this definition is no matter how similar the creatures are, they are not of the same species if they cannot interbreed. Actually this definition is related to Mayr's Founder Principle. According to this idea, if a small subset of a population is isolated from the main population for some reason, since they would represent only a small subset of the gene pool, they would start to diverge and become sexually incompatible with the main population. Indeed, there are populations which do not interbreed after a long isolation, or if they are forced to, their offsprings are either sterile or genetically defective. It is said that the isolated population is on the verge of speciation. In fact, according to the definition above, they are almost new species, even if they look the same, behave the same. However, the similarity between some creatures such as squirrels and moles, etc. in Australia and those others in other continents is at odds with Founder Principle. Evolutionists would like to explain it away by calling it "parallel evolution" which results in similar creatures under supposedly similar conditions. Unfortunately, parallel evolution contradicts Founder Principle. Aborigines who are believed to come to Australia, 30-40 thousand years ago can interbreed with Westerners. Therefore they are of the same species according to the definition. Why did such a long isolation not cause a genetic incompatibility? Unless Mayr's Founder Principle explains these problems and makes specific claims as to which species under what conditions become genetically incompatible after how long isolation in a consistent and testable way, it is merely an interpretation of a fact with the hope of explaining a process of so-called speciation. Another problem the above definition represents is its inability to cover asexual species of our time and extinct species of the past. In case of asexual species there are no male and female individuals of the same species. Therefore the definition of interbreeding capability does not work for them. As for the extinct species of the past, how do we know if they were different from those which are similar today? Take Neanderthals, for example. Could they have interbred with modern humans? If they could, they would only be a different human race! How, then, can we conclude that some hominids represented the missing link of a different species on the way to homo sapiens, if we are to stick to the above definition? Form/Function - Hardware/Software In order to make a healthy comparison between the species we need to take not only the form into account but also the function. Unfortunately the fossil record gives us snapshots of a subset of past organisms. But it does not tell us much about the internal structure and function of the organs and behaviour of those creatures. Even a simple-looking change such as extending the neck of giraffe requires extensive adaptations in the body. Not only would the blood vessels extend and adapt accordingly, but the heart should also evolve strong enough to pump the blood to the brain. Unless we have a holistic approach in studying the organism, we would only see a perhaps deceptively small part of the whole picture. Therefore it seems logically absurd to make broad statements about the history of the biological world, based on the fossil record which is a small subset of past flora and fauna. Besides, that small subset is only a part of form devoid of function. A good example of this is the Coelacanth. It was believed to be extinct for millions of years until it turned up in the nets off the coast of Madagaskar, in 1938. Because it is a lob-finned fish, evolutionists claimed (and still do) that amphibians evolved from it. In 1986, a German biologist, Hans Fricke, studied the behaviour of the fish, in deep sea, using a specially designed submarine. He found that the fins enabled the Coelacanth to swim in all directions. They had nothing to do with the way the amphibians crawled.[6] With the advent of computers and neurology, it is now known that the biological systems have a "software" part which governs their organs and behaviour. For example, even if a person has a complete mouth, tongue and vocal cords, i.e. "the perfect hardware", he cannot speak if the speech center in the brain is defective. Similarly, flying and navigating capabilities of birds would not be possible, unless their brains were equipped with the appropriate "software". Evolution of the "software" in harmony with the evolution of "hardware" through random blind coincidents of natural events is impossible to explain because the probability of such a parallel development of "hardware" and "software" through random events is practically zero. Therefore, "software" part of organisms presents an insurmountable challenge to the evolutionists. More Fallacies: Argument From Similarity, Argument From Sequence In order to establish an ancestral relationship between two species, evolutionists look for the similarities. Logically, however, if similarity indicates relationship, then dissimilarity should indicate the otherwise.[7] Evolutionists, while freely using the similarities to claim the evolutionary relationships, ignore the dissimilarities. In other words, their logic works only for their theory, never against it! A striking example is hemoglobin. Red cells of humans have an antigen which is indistinguishable from those of apes. But when we find the hemoglobin also in root nodules of leguminous plants, the fallacy becomes obvious.[8] Supposing that the fossil record indicates stages from primitive (multi-cellullar) creatures to more complicated ones in time, evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact. Even the ones who admit there are serious problems with Darwinism, claim that explaining the process of evolution, i.e. Darwinism is one thing and the fact that evolution occurred is another. According to them, the fossil record undeniably points to that fact.[9] However, this line of reasoning shows how assertions laden with belief or philosophy can be portrayed as facts. Despite the fact that the creatures can be sequenced from primitive to more sophisticated in time, it does not necessarily follow that they evolved from each other. Take the example of an imaginery human tribe which produce pots and pans. As their skill and technology advance they develop more sophisticated ones. Later, for some reason, the tribe becomes extinct and in time, their pots and pans become fossilized. Then, very evolutionist minded aliens land and dig up the fossils. Their advanced methods date the simpler ones before the sophisticated ones. Then, aliens safely conclude that the evolution of pots and pans is a fact! The only fact the fossil record tells us is the existence of some creatures in geological ages, provided that the relative datings are accurate enough. How they came into existence, whether they were re-designed from the preceding creatures or evolved from them or some of them showed up suddenly is a completely different matter. The Lack of Scientific Method Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism is claimed to explain the process. Unfortunately, however, there is no unambiguous method expressed in logical or mathematical language. All of the explanations are arbitrary in nature. If the process was really known as they always claim, we would be able to make clear scientific deductions. Then, it would be possible to feed the characteristics of a species and and some well defined conditions as an input to the process and learn the output. That would not have to be an imaginary species to be evolved millions of years later. But, at least, it would give us the tree of relationship of existing species and of the fossils. Then, it would be possible to even predict some yet-undiscovered species. However, Darwinism is nothing of that sort of theory. On the contrary, evolutionists prepare their taxonomical trees with evolutionary glasses and then tell us who evolved from whom! Delayed Research Possibilities Since evolutionists have always believed that mutations are open-ended possibilities, it never occurred to them that the genetic potential of a creature could be of a limited number of possibilities. Therefore, research to predict and test those possibilities could not be carried out. If we had a theory telling us the scope and the kinds of changes an organism could go through, it would be very fruitful. That way the breeders' practical knowledge would be generalized and enriched under the theory for all or many more species. Another delayed research topic was the so-called vestigial organs. Evolutionists regarded them useless remnants from the evolutionary ancestors until later they were found to serve important functions in the body. Now no cautious scientist can claim that an organ is useless. Only it can be said that its purpose is not known yet. The two cases above are simple but good examples to show how Darwinism based on naturalism can block or delay some avenues of scientific research. Conclusion As seen above, evolutionism suffers from many logical and methodological problems. It has a goal of explaining the origins and development of the living world. Yet the component parts of it are weak speculations which are often inconsistent and logically defective. Naturalism and the urge to find answers for the origins and the positivist belief in science that it would provide the answers on all natural phenomena sooner or later have led scientists to areas beyond their capability. Evolutionists attempted the Herculean task of explaining the impossible, the occurrence of immensely organized hardware and very sophisticated software, the information of which was uniquely hard-coded during each regeneration. And they have ended up with speculative, self-contradicting and fallacious claims. Evolutionism has reversed their view from a teleological paradigm to a self-ordering paradigm of natural selection. This tautological paradigm has spread to other research areas to provide explanations through almost arbitrary speculations. Evolutionism, under the disguise of being purely scientific, has abused science in order to advance its underlying philosophy. Long ago, a man of wisdom and a reputable scientist, J. W. Dawson had warned evolutionists of this ill-fated path they have been driving science through: "Nothing can be more interesting in a psychological point of view than to watch the manner in which some of the strongest and most subtle minds of our time exhaust their energies in the attempt to solve impenetrable mysteries, to force or pick the lack of natural secrets to which science has furnished no key." [10] and, "It is a great mistake here to suppose that a little knowledge is dangerous; every grain of pure truth is precious and will bear precious fruit. The danger lies in misusing the little knowledge for purposes which it cannot serve." [11] We will perhaps never scientifically know the history of life on Earth, how it began and how it developed. Claiming that evolution is the only alternative to Biblical special creationism which is not acceptable and unscientific, is yet another fallacy. Norman Macbeth, in his Darwin Retried, calls it "best-in-field fallacy". He says: "Is there any glory in outrunning a cripple in a foot race? Being best-in-field means nothing if the field is made up of fumblers." [12] Marxism claimed to explain human history through a dialectic materialist economic paradigm. The paradigm was nothing but a reaction based on a materialistic philosophy against the Western Capitalism and Colonialism. The Western Capitalism and Colonialism, in turn, began in a small part of the world and in a relatively very short time span of a long human history. Then Marx and his followers extrapolated their reactionary paradigm to all of the world and all times, naming it "scientific socialism". It was an over-simplification of human history as seen through their ideological glasses. Similarly, Darwinism made big claims about the long history and great diversity of life which is a very complex reality, by extrapolating the mentality of 19th century colonialist England to living nature and its origins. One should always receive with great caution big claims under the banner of science, modelled after some popular paradigm or philosophy of a particular era in the Western part of the world. |
Da, la fel de absurd e sa sustii ca Planeta Albastra, soarele, galaxiile, s-au creat doar din Energie. Sau Hidrogen. Sau dintr-un punct. Oricum îmi place ca primesti explicatii dar ramâi la stadiul dinaintea întrebarilor.
Explicatiile primite nu lamuresc articolele postate de mine, ci incearca sa eludeze problema prin discutii paralele. Inca astept ca cineva sa disece cu rigurozitate macar unul din articolele postate. Ca de pilda aceasta preblema, ridicata de ultimul articol:
| QUOTE |
Evolutionists always considered the mutations capable of providing endless combinations, a viable few of which to be selected generation after generation, thus resulting in substantial changes and novelties in organisms. However, the real scientific issue was the nature of the mutations. Were they really random? Were there limits to the changes by mutations? In other words, were the changes a possible manifestation of limited genetic potential? |
Evolutionismul propune mutatii aleatoare, care se selecteaza in functie de conditiile de mediu. Mutatii practic nelimitate, care, prin acumulare, pot vira in specii noi. Creationismul poate lua in considerare jocul hazardului in masura in care un program de computer poate fi afectat de influente exterioare. Dar acest hazard e exterior si nu apartine programului. Un soft poate face un miliard de combinatii aleatoare, insa NICIODATA nu se va transforma de unul singur intr-un alt program. Exista programe care pot simula biosfere prin nenumareate miscari aleatorii, dar acest tip de hazard este unul controlat. Programul se va misca intotdeauna intr-o arie limitata, chair daca aceasta arie permite un miliard de permutari. Toate permutarile vor tine strict de acel program, care va fi limitat scoplui pentru care a fost gandit. Ideea unor greseli de compilare care pot "naste" linii de cod valabile e absurda.
O specie isi poate dezvolta aptitudini ascunse, avand chiar capacitatea de a-si schimba designul in functie de mediu, la fel cum ursul brun poate vira la un moment dat spre cel polar. Dar de aici si pana a sustine ca peste milioane de ani ursul brun va avea aripi de libelula, picioare de broasca si branhii e total deplasat. La fel poti spune ca un soft care compune fete umane - sa zicem destinat reconstructiilor faciale, chirugiei estetice, criminalistica - poate propune miliarde si miliarde de variante, insa niciodata nu vei putea asculta mp3-uri cu el decat daca i se adauga in mod constient, de catre cineva, aceasta facilitate. Nici o conditie exterioara nu o poate face in locul unui programator.
| QUOTE |
| Evolutionismul propune mutatii aleatoare, care se selecteaza in functie de conditiile de mediu. |
Nu evolutionismul propune mutatiile ci imperfectiunea mecanismelor de duplicare ADN în timpul diviziunii celulare.
| QUOTE |
| Un soft poate face un miliard de combinatii aleatoare, insa NICIODATA nu se va transforma de unul singur intr-un alt program. |
Soft-ul numit genom are proprietatea de a se multiplica singur. Deci de unul singur. Si datorita mutatiilor, poate sa se transforme în alt program (alt genom). Nu-i mare filozofie aici.
| QUOTE |
| Ideea unor greseli de compilare care pot "naste" linii de cod valabile e absurda. |
Vad ca arunci cu generozitate peste tot, cu cuvântul "absurd", si asta despre lucruri elementare.
| QUOTE |
| Dar de aici si pana a sustine ca peste milioane de ani ursul brun va avea aripi de libelula, picioare de broasca si branhii e total deplasat. |
Aici n-ai mai folosit "absurd", ci "total deplasat". Hai sa facem un test. Uita-te bine la monitorul tau. Sticla, carcasa, brandul. Apropie-te de el, uita-te la pixeli, la colturi, la butoane. Nu ti se pare "total deplasat" ca ce ai tu în fata ochilor pe birou a fost cândva un nor de Hidrogen?
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
Nu evolutionismul propune mutatiile ci imperfectiunea mecanismelor de duplicare ADN în timpul diviziunii celulare. |
Ok, cam asta am spus si eu - chiar daca nu am formulat corect - insa am dat exemplul unui program de computer. Asta nu e evolutionism. Si un soft poate "invata", permuta, misca dupa reguli precise, insa nu vad evolutie. Incerc alt exemplu: jocul de sah cuprinde tone de strategii, insa regulile de sah sunt stricte. Daca le schimbi, atunci obtii altceva. Iar schimbarea nu se poate face aleator, ci constient, pentru ca regulile sa nu intre in conflict.
Nu neg capacitatea unei specii de a-si dezvolta latente necunoscute inca, dar de aici si pana a sustine ca o specie poate vira spre alta e cam mult.
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
Soft-ul numit genom are proprietatea de a se multiplica singur. Deci de unul singur. |
Ok, acelasi lucru il poate face si un program. Nu-ti vine cu temporare preinstalate. Tot singur si le scrie. Insa e greu de spus ca programul "evolueaza", din moment ce actiunile lui sunt previzibile.
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
Si datorita mutatiilor, poate sa se transforme în alt program (alt genom). Nu-i mare filozofie aici. |
Un genon absolut diferit sau doar o varianta imbunatatita a genomului initial? Exista programe care pot "invata" pe masura ce le introduci informatii. Dar asta nu inseamna totusi evolutie, caci programul se poate autoperfectiona, insa in nici un caz nu poate vira accidental in atlceva. Repet, nu contest posibilitatea unei specii de a se modifica in rase variate, ci contest doar ipoteza ca o specie poate vira in cu totul alta. Ursul polar e doar o rasa de urs, nicidecum o alta specie.
Nu percep creationismul ca pe ceva fix, adica in genul unui program de computer care moare exact in felul in care a fost scris, ci inteleg o materie inteligenta, un design cu reguli proprii, in care hazardul poate juca un anumit rol. Insa in nici un caz nu pot adminte ca logic broaste care devin cai, dupa cum nu poti admite un soft de Word care devine Autocad prin informatiile pe care le manipuleaza.
La fel nu ai putea admite logic ca un nor încins de Hidrogen se poate transforma în frumusetea de monitor de pe biroul tau.
Uite ca eu pot admite ca un Word, lasat un milion de ani, cu o rata de duplicare de trei ori pe secunda si o rata de erori la duplicare de 10 la puterea minus 10, poate deveni Autocad, dar nu numai atât, poate deveni ceva la care nici nu te-ai gândit vreodata ca ar putea exista. Poate.
In legatura cu insistenta ta ca "nu poti admite" ca o broasca devine cal, esti ca badea Gheo' care vazând la zoo o girafa, exclama "Asa ceva nu exista".
Hint: nu tine nimeni predici de transformare a broastelor în cai cu o bagheta magica, în 5 minute, ci se vorbeste de procese care au loc în milioane de ani, si îti trebuie un pic de deschidere sa întelegi aceste fenomene. Cel mai simplu e sa spui "eu nu cred asa ceva" pentru ca nu vezi cu ochii tai.
Uite ca eu pot admite ca un Word, lasat un milion de ani, cu o rata de duplicare de trei ori pe secunda si o rata de erori la duplicare de 10 la puterea minus 10, poate deveni Autocad, dar nu numai atât, poate deveni ceva la care nici nu te-ai gândit vreodata ca ar putea exista. Poate.
In legatura cu insistenta ta ca "nu poti admite" ca o broasca devine cal, esti ca badea Gheo' care vazând la zoo o girafa, exclama "Asa ceva nu exista".
Hint: nu tine nimeni predici de transformare a broastelor în cai cu o bagheta magica, în 5 minute, ci se vorbeste de procese care au loc în milioane de ani, si îti trebuie un pic de deschidere sa întelegi aceste fenomene. Cel mai simplu e sa spui "eu nu cred asa ceva" pentru ca nu vezi cu ochii tai.
| QUOTE (Mi_ @ Sep 4 2003, 06:14 PM) |
| La fel nu ai putea admite logic ca un nor încins de Hidrogen se poate transforma în frumusetea de monitor de pe biroul tau. |
Numai ca nu se stie ca monitorul mea a ajuns asta dintr-un nor hidrogen si asta la intamplare.:-) Ultimele teorii cosmice, nu reusesc sa explice tot scenariul. Se pare ca cineva a trebuit sa umble. Din cate stiu, dar nu stiu daca informatia mai e de actualitate, la nu stiu ce 10 la puterea minus x din prima secunda a Universului, era o densitate atat de mare, incat explozia nu putea avea loc, fara interventia cuiva. Si mai exista calcule si calcule, care arata ca aparitia vietii e mai mult decat o intamplare. E o minune.:-) Din cate stiu au calculat probabilitatea de aparitie a unei mutatii. La cate milioane de indivizi apare. Si calculand intreg lantul evolutionist de la boasca incoace, adica pana la om, presupunand ca mutatiile au supravietuit toate, etc, deci conditii optime, nu reale, au ajuns si la rezultat. Au depasit de nu stiu cate ori varsta Universului.:-) Deci nu prea tine. Se pare ca ceva e in neregula . Citeste si articolul asta. Sunt doar cateva idei, care arata ca ceva s-a intamplat.
http://www.revistapresei.ro/RO/articol.cfm...ential&ID=37782
Eu nu pot sa iti dovedesc ca Dumnezeu exista, vreu doar sa iti arat ca POATE exista ceva. Nu SIGUR nu exista.:-)
| QUOTE |
| Se pare ca cineva a trebuit sa umble. |
Normal ca "cineva" a trebuit sa "umble", doar din nimic nu se face nimic, deci nici universul nu putea aparea din nimic. Eu vad acest "umblat" ca si interventia initiala. Dupa aia nu mai trebuia umblat (aparitia vietii, a omului, toate decurg firesc, din prima "umblare").
| QUOTE |
| Si mai exista calcule si calcule, care arata ca aparitia vietii e mai mult decat o intamplare. E o minune. |
Aparitia întregului univers e o minune, aparitia vietii si a omului e inclusa în prima. Faza pe care ai citit-o tu cu depasirea vârstei universului daca faci calcule e faza de amatori, nu poti include toti factorii statistici existenti ca sa simulezi lucruri de o asa anvergura.
Mi_, imi cer scuze, dar in graba am scapat un raspuns de-al tau. Unul... ciudat...
Te rugasem sa-mi dai un exemplu de mutatie genetica benefica, iar raspunsul tau a fost o boala numita anemie falciforma (sickle-cell anemia), o forma de anemie care modifica forma globulelor rosii, acestea capatand forma de secera. Fenomenul face ca globulele in cauza sa-si diminueze functia in cauza, din moment ce in proiectul initial - nu gasesc alta formulare - ele functioneaza optim cu forma normala, forma de secera fiind o anomalie.
O particularitate a bolii este ca ofera imunitate impotriva malariei. Parazitul malariei este influentat negativ de de prezenta unor eritocite anormale, cauzate de aceasta maladie. Din acest punct de vedere poate constitui un avantaj, in special in zonele in care malaria este raspandita. Bolnavii de anemie falciforma fac forme mai usoare de malarie, ceea ce le confera un avantaj. Procentul nu este totusi foarte mare, ci ajunge undeva in jurul cifrei de 20%.
Insa anemia falciforma este totusi o maladie. Este vorba de o forma de anemie severa, insotita de crize hemolitice severe, precipitate de infectii. Conglomeratele de hematii falciforme pot da obstructii in vasele sanguine. Un intreg cortegiu de boli pot avea loc, printre care cele de inima sunt doar un exemplu.
E ca in gluma cu tipul care a scapat de amenintarea cancerului. L-a calcat masina.
Repet intrebarea: da-mi un exemplu de mutatie genetica benefica, care sa nu genereze o maladie si care sa constituie o dovada clara a unui pas evolutiv. Presupunand ca evolutia exista.
Te rugasem sa-mi dai un exemplu de mutatie genetica benefica, iar raspunsul tau a fost o boala numita anemie falciforma (sickle-cell anemia), o forma de anemie care modifica forma globulelor rosii, acestea capatand forma de secera. Fenomenul face ca globulele in cauza sa-si diminueze functia in cauza, din moment ce in proiectul initial - nu gasesc alta formulare - ele functioneaza optim cu forma normala, forma de secera fiind o anomalie.
O particularitate a bolii este ca ofera imunitate impotriva malariei. Parazitul malariei este influentat negativ de de prezenta unor eritocite anormale, cauzate de aceasta maladie. Din acest punct de vedere poate constitui un avantaj, in special in zonele in care malaria este raspandita. Bolnavii de anemie falciforma fac forme mai usoare de malarie, ceea ce le confera un avantaj. Procentul nu este totusi foarte mare, ci ajunge undeva in jurul cifrei de 20%.
Insa anemia falciforma este totusi o maladie. Este vorba de o forma de anemie severa, insotita de crize hemolitice severe, precipitate de infectii. Conglomeratele de hematii falciforme pot da obstructii in vasele sanguine. Un intreg cortegiu de boli pot avea loc, printre care cele de inima sunt doar un exemplu.
E ca in gluma cu tipul care a scapat de amenintarea cancerului. L-a calcat masina.
Repet intrebarea: da-mi un exemplu de mutatie genetica benefica, care sa nu genereze o maladie si care sa constituie o dovada clara a unui pas evolutiv. Presupunand ca evolutia exista.
| QUOTE ("Mi_") |
Uite ca eu pot admite ca un Word, lasat un milion de ani, cu o rata de duplicare de trei ori pe secunda si o rata de erori la duplicare de 10 la puterea minus 10, poate deveni Autocad, dar nu numai atât, poate deveni ceva la care nici nu te-ai gândit vreodata ca ar putea exista. Poate. |
Din nou refrenul evolutionist preferat: poate. Stii bine ca un asemenea lucru nu e posibil. Necazul e nu ai citit cu atentie articolele postate de mine, in care se face clar diferenta intre dinamismul genetic (insemnand capacitatea unei specii de a se diversifica) si mitul evolutionist. Dinamism si evolutionism nu sunt sinonime. Variata unei specii exista, insa doar in limite precise, la fel cum un program poate genera solutii valabile, in timp ce erorile ii afecteaza buna functionare. Nu exista erori functionale, dupa cum nu exista nici zapada fierbinte sau gheata clocotita. Cand un program crapa, atunci crapa printr-o eroare aleatorie. Hazardul controlat e cu totul altceva. Daca ai un zar vei obtine invariabil doar 6 numere, insa nu vei obtine un alt simbol, decat daca pe fatetele zarului exista alte simboluri.
| QUOTE |
Repet intrebarea: da-mi un exemplu de mutatie genetica benefica, care sa nu genereze o maladie |
Ma duc in Norvegia si fac niste copii pe-acolo. Unii dintre sufera o mutatie genetica si se nasc blonzi. Ca atare, au capacitate crescuta de a inmagazina energia soarelui si sunt mai bine adaptati conditiilor de mediu. Altii se nasc bruneti si sunt mai slab adaptati.
Mutatie benefica care nu genereaza nici o maladie.
| QUOTE |
Din nou refrenul evolutionist preferat: poate. Stii bine ca un asemenea lucru nu e posibil |
Este foarte posibil. Iar data viitoare cind spui ca un lucru nu e posibil sa vii si cu ceva argumente.
| QUOTE |
Nu exista erori functionale, dupa cum nu exista nici zapada fierbinte sau gheata clocotita. |
Figaro, exista zapada fierbinte si gheata clocotita. Problema este le ce presiune faci experimentul... mai documenteaza-te!
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Ma duc in Norvegia si fac niste copii pe-acolo. Unii dintre sufera o mutatie genetica si se nasc blonzi. |
Copii blonzi nu exista doar in Norvegia, ci si in Romania. E vorba de o varietate a speciei, nu de o specie noua. Blonzii nu sunt alte specii de oameni.
Mutatie genetica e atunci cand te nasti fara maini sau picioare. E vorba de un accident. La asta m-am referit. Copii blonzi se nasc prin recombinari genetice, nu prin mutatii!!!! Un blond nu e un mutant. E vorba de diversitate in limite stricte, nu de accidente care genereaza specii noi!!!
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Este foarte posibil. Iar data viitoare cind spui ca un lucru nu e posibil sa vii si cu ceva argumente. |
Argumente? Ce argumente are evolutionismul? Ca e posibil ca in milioane de ani o specie sa vireze in alta? Asta e o ipoteza, nu un argument. Argumentul e indiscutabil.
Din punct de vedere al softului oricine stie ca un bug nu e un avantaj, ci un dezavantaj. Nu exista programe care sa genereze erori inteligente ori benefice. O eroarea pozitiva nu e eroare. Exista diversitate - mi se pare normal, dupa cum exista si liber arbitru - dar un program genetic, la fel ca si un soft, nu-si va depasi propriile limite.
| QUOTE |
Mutatie genetica e atunci cand te nasti fara maini sau picioare. E vorba de un accident. La asta m-am referit. Copii blonzi se nasc prin recombinari genetice, nu prin mutatii!!!! Un blond nu e un mutant. E vorba de diversitate in limite stricte, nu de accidente care genereaza specii noi!!! |
Mutatie inseamna orice modificare de ADN. In mod evident, daca un copil cu parintii si bunicii bruneti se naste blond, este vorba despre o mutatie. Faptul ca tu vrei sa intelegi prin mutatii doar monstruozitatile e problema ta. Mutatii benefice exista!
| QUOTE |
Argumente? Ce argumente are evolutionismul? |
Aha, deci argumentul tau este "Nici tu n-ai nici un argument"... bravo, frumos!
| QUOTE |
Din punct de vedere al softului oricine stie ca un bug nu e un avantaj, ci un dezavantaj |
Dupa cum ti-am mai zis, asta e valabil in cadrul programarii clasice in care programatorul stie exact la ce sa se astepte din partea soft-ului si nu apreciaza erorile. Dar, atunci cind programatorul nu stie exact unde trebuie sa ajunga, bug-urile pot fi avantajoase.
| QUOTE |
O eroarea pozitiva nu e eroare. Exista diversitate - mi se pare normal, dupa cum exista si liber arbitru - dar un program genetic, la fel ca si un soft, nu-si va depasi propriile limite |
Soft-ul nu are limite.
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Mutatie inseamna orice modificare de ADN. |
Nope! Eu zic sa rasfoiesti un manual de Genetica. Aia nu e mutatia genetica, ci recombinarea genetica. Nu-i tot una. (Ex: recombinarea genetica prin inlantuire, prin crossing-over etc.)
Blonzi exista si vor exista. NU confuda varietatea controlata a unei specii cu transformarea (???????) unei speciii in altceva. Varietatea unei specii nu o poate afecta, din moment ce toate combinatiile care se fac au loc doar in limitele designului initial.
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Dupa cum ti-am mai zis, asta e valabil in cadrul programarii clasice in care programatorul stie exact la ce sa se astepte din partea soft-ului si nu apreciaza erorile. Dar, atunci cind programatorul nu stie exact unde trebuie sa ajunga, bug-urile pot fi avantajoase. |
Pot fi avantajoase in sensul ca ii pot da idei - in cel mai bun caz - nu si ca programul se poate rescrie prin erori. Un program nu se poate regandi singur. El poate da milioane de combinatii si solutii, insa strict in limitele impuse. Asteapta tu mult si bine ca Wordul sa-ti opreasca automat televizorul. Nu e imposibil ca un program sa faca acest lucru, insa e absolut imposibil ca sa faca acest lucru prin erori repetate. Programul nu are constiinta proprie, nu "stie" ce vrea sa faca. Ca poate face milioane de combinatii e partea a doua, generand solutii unice, insa limitele sale sunt cele trasate.
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Soft-ul nu are limite. |
Programatorul nu are limite. Softul are limite.
| QUOTE |
Nu exista insa copii cu parul verde si nici nu vor exista niciodata |
De unde stii?
| QUOTE |
toate combinatiile care se fac au loc doar in limitele designului initial |
Pe ce te bazezi? pe Biblie?
| QUOTE |
Pot fi avantajoase in sensul ca ii pot da idei - in cel mai bun caz - nu si ca programul se poate rescrie prin erori |
Ba tocmai ca se poate!
Btw, ce pregatire ai tu in informatica... sunt curios cine iti da dreptul sa faci afirmatii atit de categorice?
Regula de bun simt: Asa cum eu nu vin sa-ti vorbesc tie despre euharistie, nu-mi vorbi nici tu mie despre ce poate sa faca un program si ce nu poate!
| QUOTE |
Programatorul nu are limite. Softul are limite. |
Pai parca tu sustineai ca si programatorul este un soft la rindul lui, te-ai razgindit brusc?
Catalin, te rog sa rasfoiesti un macar cateva pagini dintr-un manual de Genetica. Aia e recombinarea genetica, nu mutatia genetica!!!! Recombinarea aduce varietate speciei in anumite limite, in timp ce mutatia reprezinta un accident, o aberatie.
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Pe ce te bazezi? pe Biblie? |
Nu, pe genetica. Repet: recombinarea genetica e una, mutatia genetica e alta.
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Ba tocmai ca se poate! |
Destul de sumara. La fel ca pregatirea ta in genetica.
Ia sa auzim cum se poate rescrie un program prin erori! Intamplarea face sa fiu inconjurat de programatori care imi spun ca acest lucru e imposibil!
| QUOTE ("Catalin") |
Regula de bun simt: Asa cum eu nu vin sa-ti vorbesc tie despre euharistie, nu-mi vorbi nici tu mie despre ce poate sa faca un program si ce nu poate! |
Regula de bun simt presupune si explicarea termenilor folositi. Asa ca astept inca un exemplu de eroare pozitiva, atat in soft cat si in materialul genetic. NU variatie, nu solutie generata in cadrul unor anumite reguli, ci eroarea cu valoare constienta, ceva absolut nou, care sa ofere functii noi unui program.
Wordul NU poate sa remixeze fisiere wav, nu poate sa compuna muzica, nu poate sa faca separatii pentru tipar. O va face doar daca un programator il va regandi. Insa ideea ca Wordul s-ar putea rescrie singur in milioane de ani e absurda.
Astept in continuare exemple de erori "functionale".
============================================================
Orice manual de genetica ofera imaginea unui program, care se dezvolta in limite date. Genetica este un domeniu aflat la inceput, insa exista reguli clare care au fost decoperite. Exemplu ar fi cele 5 reglaje genetice ale sintezei proteinelor. Avem un reglaj transcriptional, reglaj de maturare, reglaj de transport, reglaj translational si un reglaj al degradarii. Un design, care e gandit sa elimine erorile aparute. Mitul evolutionist al accidentelor benfice nu poate avea o justificare in prezenta unor limite precise.
| QUOTE |
| Figaro: E ca in gluma cu tipul care a scapat de amenintarea cancerului. L-a calcat masina. |
Nu ai înteles. Daca mutatia ce genereaza sicklemia aparea mai devreme, imediat dupa aparitia omului, si o un trib de sicklemici câstiga razboiul cu un trib de "normali" (din diferite motive), în momentul de fata toata populatia planetei avea aceasta caracteristica, mai rezistenta la malarie, mai anemica si mai predispusa la accidente cardiace (ca oricum e predispusa). Si pentru ca nu am fi avut alt termen de comparatie, ne-am fi spus perfect sanatosi asa.
Exemplu de mutatie benefica: pai ia pe rând toate caracteristicile benefice (sau care ti se par tie benefice) fata de cimpanzeu. Sau fata de urs. Stadiul actual al organismului uman e rezultatul selectarii naturale ale mutatiilor benefice.
Vezi ca în timpul recombinarilor genetice (pe care pui accent) au loc cele mai multe mutatii, si asta din cauza imperfectiunii aparatului de duplicare ADN.
Exemplu de mutatie benefica: pai ia pe rând toate caracteristicile benefice (sau care ti se par tie benefice) fata de cimpanzeu. Sau fata de urs. Stadiul actual al organismului uman e rezultatul selectarii naturale ale mutatiilor benefice.
Vezi ca în timpul recombinarilor genetice (pe care pui accent) au loc cele mai multe mutatii, si asta din cauza imperfectiunii aparatului de duplicare ADN.
| QUOTE |
| mutatia reprezinta un accident, o aberatie. |
Iar n-ai înteles, mutatia nu e din start o aberatie, e un produs al unor factori ce determina cu o probabilitate statistica aparitia unei erori, eroare care poate fi malefica (majoritatea cazurilor) si benefica (minoritate). Cum spuneam, daca gena ursului brun care îi conditioneaza culoarea blanii are o mutatie spre culoarea alba, mutatia va fi benefica dpdv al acomodarii ursului la mediul plin cu zapada. Deci nu e mereu o aberatie.
| QUOTE |
| Wordul NU poate sa remixeze fisiere wav, nu poate sa compuna muzica, nu poate sa faca separatii pentru tipar. O va face doar daca un programator il va regandi. Insa ideea ca Wordul s-ar putea rescrie singur in milioane de ani e absurda. |
Din nou remarc cuvântul tau favorit, "absurd". Daca dai o comanda de multiplicare a codului lui Word si introduci generarea aleatorie a unei linii random la un miliard de duplicari (ca sa simulezi imperfectiunea duplicarii ADN), peste un milion de ani vei gasi produsul selectarii acelor linii de cod care statistic erau valide (una din o mie de miliarde, n-are importanta, important e ca pâna la urma, din permutarea literelor unei linii de 100 caractere, poti obtine o alta linie de 100 caractere (sau 90 sau 110) care sa aiba sens.
| QUOTE |
| Un design, care e gandit sa elimine erorile aparute. Mitul evolutionist al accidentelor benfice nu poate avea o justificare in prezenta unor limite precise. |
Iar bagi de la tine. Design-ul de care vorbesti nu elimina totalitatea erorilor aparute, doar le reduce numarul.
In final am o întrebare pentru tine, Figaro, ca vad ca le ai cu genetica: prin ce mecanism o bacterie capata rezistenta la un antibiotic?
In final am o întrebare pentru tine, Figaro, ca vad ca le ai cu genetica: prin ce mecanism o bacterie capata rezistenta la un antibiotic?
Aceasta este o versiune "Text-Only" a continutului acestui forum. Pentru a vizualiza versiunea completa, cu mai multe informatii, formatari si imagini,click aici.