Zasto je evolucija tačna

[Aquilius Cratus]

http://www.heliks.rs/najveca_predstava_na_zemlji.asp

[Aquilius Cratus]

Odlomak iz knjige

http://www.heliks.rs/assets/text/npz_odlomak.pdf

[Aquilius Cratus]

Link za skidanje cele knjige na Engleskom

http://rs751.rapidshare.com/files/309470371/Richard.Dawkins-The.Greatest.Show.on.Earth.rtf.pdf.rar

[Aquilius Cratus]

[Grizzly Adams]

How To Shut Up Pesky Ken Miller

[table]

[tr]

[td]Finally, a piece of evidence Dr. Miller commonly cites as demonstrating human/chimp common ancestry is the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans, which he argues has a structure similar to what one would expect if chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b were fused together, end to end. Without belaboring the details (which are covered elsewhere*), the evidence for human chromosomal fusion simply indicates that our ancestors once had 48 chromosomes. But it tells us nothing definitive about whether our lineage leads back to a common ancestor shared with with apes. Human chromosomal fusion merely shows that at some point within our human lineage, two chromosomes became fused. That’s it.

If we step outside the Darwinian box, then the following scenario becomes possible: (1) The human lineage arose separately from that of apes with 48 chromosmes, (2) a chromosomal-fusion event occurred, and (3) the trait spread throughout the human population. In such a scenario, the evidence would appear precisely as we find it, without any common ancestry between humans and apes. The two diagrams at right show two models for explaining the evidence for human chromosomal fusion.

[/td]

[td]  [/td]

[td]

[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

At most, the fusion evidence confirms something we already knew: humans and apes share a similar genetic structure. But this might have been predicted by morphological studies without considering evolution. Again, common design can also account for such functional genetic similarities, and the fusion evidence does not demonstrate that humans share a common ancestor with apes.

Dr. Miller may reply that his model predicts the fusion evidence. But if we didn’t find evidence for fusion in human chromosome 2, would that really refute Darwinism? No. Evolutionists would just claim that the fused telomeres and extra centromere were deleted.

* http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

Miller's "prediction" of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a hard prediction of his theory: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true.

It only gets worse for Neo-Darwinism

Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller's Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like "how could a fusion event get fixed into a population via random and unguided processes, or how could it result in viable offspring?" Miller's account must overcome two potential obstacles:

(1) In most of our experience, individuals with randomly-fused chromosomes or extra chromosomes can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Translocation Down's syndrome, where part of chromosome 21 become fused to another chromosome, resulting in extra material from chromosome 21 in an individual, causing Down's syndrome.

(2) One way around the problem in (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event or chromosomal splitting event. But this would require a rare mutant finding a mate with identical traits. Valentine and Erwin explain that the odds of rare-mutants finding mates with identical traits are highly unlikely:

"[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event."

(Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. "'Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)

In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors. Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous, perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans.

Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration could have created a non-viable mutant, or a normal individual who could not produce viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous.

If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.

Source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/confusing_evidence_for_common.html

[Grizzly Adams]

http://www.heliks.rs/najveca_predstava_na_zemlji.asp

?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?? ?????. ?????? ?.?. ???? ?? ?? ???? ????????????...

[Guest Alefshin]

Пазите наслов `Зашто је мајмунска теорија истина`. Значи, ова интелектуално инфериорна теорија је ништа друго него `истина` што је епитет који се може придати једино и само живоме Богу?! Зна се Ко је Истина, зна се ко је Дух Истине, али некоме је ова интелектуална беда од теорије `истина`. Па ви видите колико су поједини људи заслепљени и колико им је испран мозак.

[Justin Waters]

Пазите наслов `Зашто је мајмунска теорија истина`. Значи, ова интелектуално инфериорна теорија је ништа друго него `истина` што је епитет који се може придати једино и само живоме Богу?! Зна се Ко је Истина, зна се ко је Дух Истине, али некоме је ова интелектуална беда од теорије `истина`. Па ви видите колико су поједини људи заслепљени и колико им је испран мозак.

Можда он тај наслов изговара у афекту према критичарима ТЕ, јер сви "истински" еволуционисти се најеже када им кажеш да ти је смешно тврдити да је човек настао од мајмуна. Па ти онда уместо шије подмећу врат, па кажу неее незналице једне није од мајмуна него од човеколиког мајума 0409_feel. Јер ваљда мајмун и човек имају истог предака, а то је човеколики мајмун, или мајмунолики човек ко ће га знати...е сад ко је сад предак ток предака човека и мајмуна, вероватно неки рептил. Ето увреди се када им кажеш да су настали од мајмуна, али зато не могу много да се буне када одеш још даље па кажеш да све то потиче од неког тамо рептила, јер другог и бољег објашњења немају. Зато оно говори то "зашто је мајмунска теорија истинита" мислећи да тиме пркоси у брк свим противницима нарочито хришћанима. Гле какве су то "незналице" мисли Докинс, сад ћу им и оно што није тако, али они мисле, изрећи као да је истина, па тако ћу их "понизити" и "обесрамити" тиме што ћу нешто што они исмевају да прогласим истином.

[Лазар]

Не могу никако да разумијем ову нашу браћу која тврде да је човјек настао од мајмуна (или човјеколиког мајмуна, што му дође на исто)....Ако се само мало окренете око себе и погледате сву ову љепоту која нас окружује, па онда погледате неку животињу или биљку како је то све комплексно направљено али опет све предивно, а онда даље када се погледа "ниже" тј. од чега се састоји сваки живи организам како је тек то комплексно и савршено...А онда ви еволоционисти додјете и кажете да је то све настало случајно и дајете нека компликована објашњења а у ствари све је врло једноставно, само ако хоћете да разумијете...Морална правила овога свијете су једноставна, као и Христове бесједе у светом писму-да их може свако разумијети без обзира на ниво образовања али питање је колико их ми хоћемо испуњавати јер неким људима је лакше рећи нема Бога и да је човјек животиња (ако је настао од мајмуна) па се онда може понашати као животиња и не треба испуњавати десет Божијих заповјести (по мом скромном мишљењу ово је један од битних разлога зашто се гура ТЕ ) .

Ако се ико икада бавио науком и поготово мало математиком (теорије вјероватноће на пример) одмах ће да увиди колико је бесмислена ТЕ еволуције и скоро сви велики научници свјета (Њутн, Паскал...) су то схватили (неки прије, неки касније) и постали су велики вјерници...

[Срећко Петровић]

???????:

?????? ?????? `????? ?? ????????? ??????? ??????`. ?????, ??? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? `??????` ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ?????! ??? ?? ?? ?? ??????, ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????, ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????????????? ???? ?? ??????? `??????`. ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????????? ? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????.

?????? ?? ????? ????.

??? ??????, ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????. ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ? ??????????-??????????????????? ? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????????? ???. ??????????????? ???????, ? ??????? ?? ????: ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????????? ??? ?????????, ??? ?? ? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? /=?????/.

[Aquilius Cratus]

http://www.heliks.rs/najveca_predstava_na_zemlji.asp

?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?? ?????. ?????? ?.?. ???? ?? ?? ???? ????????????... 0442_feel

Nije korektno poredjenje. Dokins je genijalan kad je rec o objasnjavanju nauke i biologije. Jedan od boljih evolucionih biologa. Da li zbog ideoloskih razloga ili iz pukog neznanja poceo je govoriti i iznositi gomilu neistina

o hriscanstvu. Ali to ne cini ono sto radi u nauci losim.

Dok sa druge strane Petrovic masakrira i nauku i teologiju.

[Aquilius Cratus]

?? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? (??? ???????????? ???????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ????)....??? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ? ????????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????????, ?? ???? ????????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ????????, ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? "????" ??. ?? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????????? ? ????????...? ???? ?? ????????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ? ?????? ???? ???????????? ????????? ? ? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???????????, ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??????????...??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????????, ??? ? ???????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????-?? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? (??? ?? ?????? ?? ???????) ?? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ???????? ? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ?????????? (?? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ) .

??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ??????????? (??????? ???????????? ?? ??????) ????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ?? ????????? ? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? (????, ??????...) ?? ?? ???????? (???? ?????, ???? ???????) ? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????...

To je zato sto ne razumes kako nauka funkcionise i sta je zadatak nauke. Nauka kao prvo ne govori i ne moze da govori o coveku u tom smislu kao hriscanstvo ili filozofija. Zato sto se tada covek posmatra ontoloski telo + dusa. A kad prirodna nauka kaze covek ona misli na organizam na ljudsko telo. Ona samo to posmatra zato sto se samo to moze da podvrgne naucnom metodu. Dakle nauka ne kaze da je covek nastao od majmuna nego, ajde u hriscanskom svetlu, da mu je telo uzeto od zemlje kroz amebe, ribe, reptile i medju ostalom famozne majmune.

Da takodje svaki matematicar zna da je bezsmislneno verovatnocom posmatrati dogadjaje iz proslosi jer ti onda nikad ne bi mogao 0442_feel popunis kvadrat od 100 poligona sa 100 elemenata zato sto je za to verovatnoca mnogo manje nego za ono sto ti tvrdis kod evolucije.

A Njutn i Paskal su ziveli mnoooogo godina pre Darvina.

[Justin Waters]

To je zato sto ne razumes kako nauka funkcionise i sta je zadatak nauke. Nauka kao prvo ne govori i ne moze da govori o coveku u tom smislu kao hriscanstvo ili filozofija. Zato sto se tada covek posmatra ontoloski telo + dusa. A kad prirodna nauka kaze covek ona misli na organizam na ljudsko telo. Ona samo to posmatra zato sto se samo to moze da podvrgne naucnom metodu. Dakle nauka ne kaze da je covek nastao od majmuna nego, ajde u hriscanskom svetlu, da mu je telo uzeto od zemlje kroz amebe, ribe, reptile i medju ostalom famozne majmune.

??? ???? ???? ????????????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ????????????...???

????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????, ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ? ?? ????. ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????????

[Aquilius Cratus]

How To Shut Up Pesky Ken Miller

[table]

[tr]

[td]Finally, a piece of evidence Dr. Miller commonly cites as demonstrating human/chimp common ancestry is the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans, which he argues has a structure similar to what one would expect if chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b were fused together, end to end. Without belaboring the details (which are covered elsewhere*), the evidence for human chromosomal fusion simply indicates that our ancestors once had 48 chromosomes. But it tells us nothing definitive about whether our lineage leads back to a common ancestor shared with with apes. Human chromosomal fusion merely shows that at some point within our human lineage, two chromosomes became fused. That’s it.

If we step outside the Darwinian box, then the following scenario becomes possible: (1) The human lineage arose separately from that of apes with 48 chromosmes, (2) a chromosomal-fusion event occurred, and (3) the trait spread throughout the human population. In such a scenario, the evidence would appear precisely as we find it, without any common ancestry between humans and apes. The two diagrams at right show two models for explaining the evidence for human chromosomal fusion.

[/td]

[td]  [/td]

[td]

[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

At most, the fusion evidence confirms something we already knew: humans and apes share a similar genetic structure. But this might have been predicted by morphological studies without considering evolution. Again, common design can also account for such functional genetic similarities, and the fusion evidence does not demonstrate that humans share a common ancestor with apes.

Dr. Miller may reply that his model predicts the fusion evidence. But if we didn’t find evidence for fusion in human chromosome 2, would that really refute Darwinism? No. Evolutionists would just claim that the fused telomeres and extra centromere were deleted.

* http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

Miller's "prediction" of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a hard prediction of his theory: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true.

It only gets worse for Neo-Darwinism

Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller's Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like "how could a fusion event get fixed into a population via random and unguided processes, or how could it result in viable offspring?" Miller's account must overcome two potential obstacles:

(1) In most of our experience, individuals with randomly-fused chromosomes or extra chromosomes can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Translocation Down's syndrome, where part of chromosome 21 become fused to another chromosome, resulting in extra material from chromosome 21 in an individual, causing Down's syndrome.

(2) One way around the problem in (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event or chromosomal splitting event. But this would require a rare mutant finding a mate with identical traits. Valentine and Erwin explain that the odds of rare-mutants finding mates with identical traits are highly unlikely:

"[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event."

(Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. "'Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)

In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors. Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous, perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans.

Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration could have created a non-viable mutant, or a normal individual who could not produce viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous.

If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.

Source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/confusing_evidence_for_common.html

I ti si nasao izvor za medalju. Laskin, a jooj. Ceo taj ID pokret se odrzava na "I don't understand it so it must be wrong". I to je kritika nauke???

Evo ti ga heroj u punom sjaju:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFdhDetQ4wM

[Aquilius Cratus]

To je zato sto ne razumes kako nauka funkcionise i sta je zadatak nauke. Nauka kao prvo ne govori i ne moze da govori o coveku u tom smislu kao hriscanstvo ili filozofija. Zato sto se tada covek posmatra ontoloski telo + dusa. A kad prirodna nauka kaze covek ona misli na organizam na ljudsko telo. Ona samo to posmatra zato sto se samo to moze da podvrgne naucnom metodu. Dakle nauka ne kaze da je covek nastao od majmuna nego, ajde u hriscanskom svetlu, da mu je telo uzeto od zemlje kroz amebe, ribe, reptile i medju ostalom famozne majmune.

??? ???? ???? ????????????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ????????????...???

????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????, ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ? ?? ????. ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????????

Ne, ne kao salu. Ljudski organizam je veoma podlozan evolutivnim mehanizmima. Btw, vec sam istakao da

ljudski organizam nije isto sto i COVEK. Covek je filozoska kategorija.