Подфорум "Стварање" на ЖРУ

[grigorije22]

kitove koji su sisari i koji udisu vazduh kao njihovi kopneni rodjaci, i koji imaju obrnutu postavku peraja

 

 

I zato treba da poverujem da je medved usao u vodu i tokom miliona godina zahvaljujuci malim promena se trasformisao u kita.

[grigorije22]

Kao sto si mogao vidjeti, na moje pitanje zasto je guster beneficirao sposobnoscu da mu rep opet naraste, a jastog da mu tkivo nikad ne stari, za razliku od ptice kivi koja mora nositi jako tesko jaje u sebi, dobio sam odgovor da se tako Bogu moze.

 

 

Dobro evo ispravicu se oni imaju te sposobnosti zahvaljujuci greskama nakupljenim u DNK.

[grigorije22]

Kivi je poznat da nema krila, jer zivi na ostrvu kojem vec milionima godina dominiraju ptice,i nema predstora i drugih neprijatelja, pa je vremenim velicina skeleta atrofirala, umanila de, a jaje je ostalo poprilicno veliko.

 

 

Ovde si sam napisao da je vremenom atrofirala degradirala, sto znaci da ona nije oduvek bila takva.

[Avocado]

I zato treba da poverujem da je medved usao u vodu i tokom miliona godina zahvaljujuci malim promena se trasformisao u kita.

 

Ne... trebalo bi prvo da naučiš od koje i kakve životinje je po teorijama naučnika nastao kit (hint: nije medved)... zatim bi trebalo da pročitaš objašnjenja kako se to desilo, na osnovu čega to naučnici smatraju, itd... zatim bi trebalo da bar pokušaš da ih shvatiš... da se konsultuješ ako nešto nije jasno... a onda bi trebalo da zauzmeš stav o tome na osnovu onoga što znaš i razumeš a ne samo na osnovu onoga što veruješ...

[Tumaralo.]

Ne... trebalo bi prvo da naučiš od koje i kakve životinje je po teorijama naučnika nastao kit (hint: nije medved)... zatim bi trebalo da pročitaš objašnjenja kako se to desilo, na osnovu čega to naučnici smatraju, itd... zatim bi trebalo da bar pokušaš da ih shvatiš... da se konsultuješ ako nešto nije jasno... a onda bi trebalo da zauzmeš stav o tome na osnovu onoga što znaš i razumeš a ne samo na osnovu onoga što veruješ...

.....iiiiii glavna stvar- da upotrebis mastu! xD

[Млађони]

Такве примере само и налазимо. Закржљало ово-оно, изгубило се ово-оно, смањило се  ово-оно ... Врсте паса су све инфериорне у односу на предходне. Пусти пудлицу или пит була у шуму и видећеш колико ће преживети.

 

 

Los primer si uzeo, pidlica i pitbull su ti vestacki stvarane rase psa. 

Dakle nije evolucija stvorila njihove karakteristike nego covek.

Nije prirodna selekcija odredila sta ce da se usmeri od osobina nego covek.

 

Nije u pitanju samo "zakrznjavanje" zakrznjavanje su negativne promene koje navedemo pored pozitivnih da bi ljudima koji ne veruju u evoluciju objasnili da ima tragova koji povezuju recimo skelet LUCI sa danasnjim covekom. 

 

Ili koji povezuju kita sa zivotinjom koja je nekad hodala po zemlji. (zakrzljale nogice) 

To su tragovi da je kit nastao od neceg sto je nekad hodalo zemljom i da se covekov predak pentrao sa majmunima. 

 

Vrste nikako nisu inferiorne u odnosu na prethodne, sem ako ne smatras bubasvabu inferiornom u odnosu na coveka. 

Mada ja generalno ne volim taj termin "inferiorna"i "superiorna" vrsta, takvo nesto ne postoji... svaka vrsta je prilagodjena odredjenoj okolini. 

 

Mozda je covek jedina superiorna vrsta jer ima mozak koji mu pomaze da se prilagodi svakoj okolini. Pusti lavove da trce po norveskoj izumrece, pusti vukove po savani isto ce da im se desi..

Stavi coveka bilo gde izgradice skloniste, napraviti izvor toplote, odecu, obucu i prezivece. 

[grigorije22]

Mudskippers—marvels of the mud-flats!

©iStockPhoto.com/rocketegg

by Philip Bell

If you have ever seen a wildlife documentary on tropical mangrove swamps, you will likely have observed mudskippers at work and play. These unusual fish, about 15 cm (6 in) long, are a type of goby.¹ Swimming in water, they seem no more remarkable than other fish. However, once the tide goes out to expose the mudflats, it’s a different matter altogether.

Comedians among fishes

Mudskipper antics on land are certainly amusing to watch. To move along, a mudskipper will slump forwards by doing ‘press-ups’ with its pectoral fins, a type of locomotion called ‘crutching’.² When two male mudskippers dispute territory, they press up on their pectorals with mouths agape, making sideways head-swipes at each other. This comical sight was amusingly captured on acclaimed wildlife TV series, Life.³ Most dramatically of all, a mudskipper may try to attract the attention of a mate by an impressive leap into the air, followed by an ungainly landing!

A creationist’s worst nightmare?

A fish that spends more of its life on land than in the water and ‘walks’ (after a fashion) on its pectoral fins is certainly an oddity. Some evolutionists have pounced on the mudskipper as allegedly providing evidence against biblical creation. On a well known anti-creationist website, one blogger gleefully responded to a picture of two Indonesian mudskippers with the comment: “Oh no! The creationists’ worst nightmare: a walking fish!”⁴

Contrary to these confident claims, this unique and fascinating amphibious fish is in no way troublesome to those who view Genesis 1–11 as literal history.

An on-line video also exults in this as a major ‘Creationist’s Nightmare’.⁵ Among the reasons given are mudskippers’ unusual method of breathing and their unique eyes. However, the coup de grace, according to certain evolutionists, is that “the front fins can barely be called fins anymore: they are clearly an in-between of fins and more complex legs, to walk on land.” The triumphal conclusion reached? “Knowing all this, how can you ever claim that there are no transitional species?”

Accepting the challenge

Contrary to these confident claims, this unique and fascinating amphibious fish is in no way troublesome to those who view Genesis 1–11 as literal history. Periodically, Creation magazine has dealt head-on with evolutionary notions about weird and wonderful fish and fish-like animals, such as the axolotl⁶ and the handfish,⁷ similarly claimed to be evolutionary transitions or throwbacks. So, what about mudskippers?

Their robust pectoral fins are distinct from those of most other gobies, possessing double-jointed movable hinge joints. The fin muscles are also unusual, being divided into sections that move the upper and lower fin rays independently.⁸ Studies have shown that their fin-rays are partially collapsed when moving over land but are positioned to give maximum foothold on the mud.⁹ The anatomy and deployment of these fins gives them the much-needed strength, flexibility, control and range of movement for the mudskipper’s mudflat lifestyle. Slow and gradual evolutionary modification of these crucial organs of movement would require many information-adding mutations to occur in just the right places at just the right times—mutations to alter the musculo-skeletal system, the wiring of the nerves and, most importantly, the embryological development of the fins. Instead, extensive research into these kinds of complex specified genetic changes provides no evidence that they can occur, let alone in such coordinated coincidences as would be required.¹⁰ Also, each such mutation needs to provide a distinct advantage to the fish in order to be ‘locked in’ by natural selection. The likelihood of all this is vanishingly small.

The fish that blinks

Specializations of eyes in living creatures are often claimed to demonstrate the truth of evolution, but nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the surface-swimming Anableps (a fish possessing eyes with the equivalent of bifocals)¹¹ and the deep-sea brownsnout spookfish (with its telescopic eyes that look two ways with the help of mirrors!)¹² are both creatures whose eye designs cannot be accounted for by just-so story-telling.

Nothing was left to chance in the mudskipper’s design.

Mudskippers have excellent all-round vision,¹³ which makes perfect sense for a creature that could easily become a tasty snack for predators, and argues against the slow evolution of this feature over millions of years. All mudskipper species have prominent eyes positioned on top of the head, more forward-facing than in most other fish. This gives them limited stereoscopic vision, allowing depth perception as in human beings. External eye muscles form a hammock-like seat for the eyes, allowing them to be raised or depressed at will¹⁴ and even to be completely shut inside liquid-filled skin ‘cups’ when necessary. This feature is essential to keep the eyes moist, and makes them unique as fish which blink!

The light-sensitive retina of each eye is ‘ramped’ so that it is further from the lens towards the top of the eye.¹⁵ This means it can focus on objects at different distances with the upper and lower parts of the eye, a useful feature for a fish that is in and out of the water so much.

For any one of these complex specializations to arise by unguided genetic mistakes is unlikely to say the least. Considered altogether, these features of mudskipper eyes represent a brilliant design solution to their peculiar lifestyle. Just suppose that protruding eyes had somehow evolved but the special moisturising cups had yet to appear and/or the special lens-retina relationship had yet to arise. Fish trying to make it on land but which couldn’t properly focus on objects, and whose eyes were liable to damage by drying out, would have been hugely disadvantaged—and less fit to survive.

Skin breathing specialists

Mudskippers do not breathe through their gills, which are used instead to excrete waste products such as ammonia.¹⁶ Rather, gas exchange occurs across the entire skin surface, which must be kept moist for the purpose. This includes the inner linings of the mouth and throat which, like our own lungs, are moistened surfaces lined with blood capillaries. Mudskippers may gulp mouthfuls of air by enlarging the throat cavity while closing a special valve to the gills. While under water they are, in fact, less efficient at gas exchange than most other fish so their heartbeat and general metabolism must be slowed down to conserve oxygen. This suite of special features for breathing air makes good sense in a creature that lives the mudskipper’s life. However, try contemplating how the blind forces of evolution could gradually have changed a gill-breathing fish (perfectly adapted to life in water) into a mouth and body surface-breathing amphibious fish. At every one of the numerous intermediate steps away from a true fish, anatomical and physiological challenges would rear their ugly heads, making any claimed survival benefit wishful thinking.

Nothing was left to chance in the mudskipper’s design. For instance, fish in general must maintain a slimy mucus coat as a barrier against various parasites. This is much more important for mudskippers when sliding about on land and through their burrows (see box). Mudskippers’ mucus does more than just lubricate their skin, reducing drag. Recent research has shown it also has antimicrobial activity against a wide range of bacteria.¹⁷ This includes many which infect humans, so studying the mucus could benefit mankind.

Mudskippers affirm creation!

Mudskippers really are marvels of the mangrove swamps and mudflats. Whether we focus on their special eyes, take in their unique breathing or ponder their amusing fin-walking, these fish seem to have an ideal blend of characteristics for creatures that are at home in water and on land. Their various ‘departures’ from normal fish anatomy show an economy of design, with the complex parts of each body system all clearly specified (by instructions in the DNA) and finely tuned. Mudskippers are certainly no reason for creationists to have bad dreams! Those who choose to believe otherwise would appear to be willingly ignorant (2 Peter 3:5).

http://creation.com/mudskipper

[Avocado]

Mudskippers—marvels of the mud-flats!

 

 

Zašto neko napiše ovoliki tekst samo da bi izjavio da je njegovom mozgiću previše komplikovano da shvati da je određeni organ nastao evolucijom?

 

Mislim, razumem da bar ima neku argumentaciju i da nešto pokušava da demonstrira, ali "bla, bla, bla... ovo je previše kompleksno da bi nastalo evolucijom, bla, bla, bla..." nije više interesantno ni kreacionistima... ili možda jeste?

[markosbg]

Zašto neko napiše ovoliki tekst samo da bi izjavio da je njegovom mozgiću previše komplikovano da shvati da je određeni organ nastao evolucijom?

 

Mislim, razumem da bar ima neku argumentaciju i da nešto pokušava da demonstrira, ali "bla, bla, bla... ovo je previše kompleksno da bi nastalo evolucijom, bla, bla, bla..." nije više interesantno ni kreacionistima... ili možda jeste?

 

Lakse je verovati da je bog stvorio trenutno poznatih blizu 2 miliona vrsta zivotinja, a da ih je Noje sve strpao u barku u parovima, a neke u 7 parova, nego da se to sve desilo evolucijom.

[grigorije22]

A Mousetrap Defended Response to Critics Michael Behe, Discovery Institute

© 2000 Michael Behe.  Originally published at the Discovery Institute’s website.

All Rights Reserved.  Used by Permission.  Introduction Note: Though Behe is not a creationist, this response to criticism is provided here for the benefit of those considering the questionable nature of today’s mainstream evolutionary paradigm.

n Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term “irreducible complexity” in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems.  In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function.  The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step^[1], with no thought for their future utility.  I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework.  Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design.

In order to communicate the concept to a general audience, I used a mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system in everyday life.  The mousetrap I pictured in my book had a number of parts that all had to work together to catch mice.  The usefulness of the mousetrap example was that it captured the essence of the problem I saw for gradualistic evolution at a level that could be understood by people who were unfamiliar with the fine points of protein structure and function—that is, nearly everyone.  For that same reason, defenders of Darwinism have assailed it.  Although it may seem silly to argue over a mousetrap, it is actually critical to allowing people who are not professional scientists to understand the issues involved.  In this article I defend the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity that can’t be put together by a series of small, undirected steps.

Mousetrap rebuttals have popped up in a variety of situations including national television, but most recently (June 2000) was at a conference I attended at Concordia University in Wisconsin where Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, spent several minutes during his presentation attacking the mousetrap.  In doing so he used images of mousetraps that were drawn by Professor John McDonald of the University of Delaware and can be seen on his web site^[2] (reproduced below with permission).  In defense of the mousetrap I will make a number of points, including:  (1) McDonald’s reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap I showed; (2) intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps^[3]; if intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell.

Conceptual Precursors vs. Physical Precursors

On his web site Professor McDonald was careful to make a critical distinction.  He clearly stated “the reduced-complexity mousetraps . . . are intended to point out the logical flaw in the intelligent design argument; they’re not intended as an analogy of how evolution works.” Nonetheless Kenneth Miller discussed McDonald’s examples in a way that would lead an audience to think that they were indeed relevant to Darwinian evolution.  Only at the end of the presentation did he briefly mention the disanalogy.  I believe such tactics are disingenuous at best, like tagging a brief warning onto the end of a cigarette commercial containing attractive images.  The purpose of the images is to get you to buy the cigarettes, despite the warning.  The purpose of citing McDonald’s drawings is to get people to buy Darwinian evolution, despite the brief disclaimer.

The logical point Professor McDonald wished to make was that there are mousetraps that can work with fewer parts than the trap I pictured in my book.  Let me say that I agree completely; in fact, I said so in my book (see below).  For example, one can dig a steep hole in the ground for mice to fall into and starve to death.  Arguably that has zero parts.  One can catch mice with a glue trap, which has only one part.  One can prop up a box with a stick, hoping a mouse will bump the stick and the box will fall on top of it.  That has two parts.  And so forth.  There is no end to possible variation in mousetrap design.  But, as I tried to emphasize in my book, the point that is relevant to Darwinian evolution is not whether one can make variant structures, but whether those structures lead, step-by-excruciatingly-tedious-Darwinian-step, to the structure I showed.  I wrote^[3]:

To feel the full force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors we need to distinguish between a

physical

precursor and a

conceptual

precursor.  The trap described above is not the only system that can immobilize a mouse.  On other occasions my family has used a glue trap.  In theory at least, one can use a box propped open with a stick that could be tripped.  Or one can simply shoot the mouse with a BB gun.  However, these are not physical precursors to the standard mousetrap since they cannot be transformed, step-by-Darwinian-step, into a trap with a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar.

Since I agree with Professor McDonald that there could be mousetraps with fewer parts, the only relevant question is whether the mousetraps he drew are physical precursors, or merely conceptual precursors.  Can they “be transformed, step-by-Darwinian-step” into the trap I pictured (essentially the same structure as the fifth trap shown below), as some people have been led to believe?  No, they can’t. 

From the first trap to the second

Professor McDonald started with a complete mousetrap and then showed ones with fewer parts.  I will reverse that order, start with his simplest trap, and show the steps that would be necessary to convert it into the next more complex trap in his series.  That, after all, is the way Darwinian evolution would have to work.  If we are to picture this as a Darwinian process, then each separate adjustment must count as a “mutation.” If several separate mutations have to occur before we go from one functional trap to the next, then a Darwinian process is effectively ruled out, because the probability of getting multiple unselected mutations that eventually lead to a specific complex structure is prohibitive.  Shown below are the simplest and next-to-simplest traps.

Figure 1. The first trap (top) and second trap (bottom).

The single-piece trap, consisting of just a spring with extended arms, is supposed to have one arm, under tension, propped up on the other arm.  When a mouse jiggles it, the arm is released and comes down, pinning the mouse’s paw against the other arm.  Now, the first thing to notice is that the single piece trap isn’t a simple spring—it’s got a very specific structure.  If the lengths of the extended ends varied by much before their first bend, or if the angle of the bends differed somewhat, the trap wouldn’t work.  What’s more, the strength of the material out of which the spring is made has to be consonant with the purpose of catching a mouse (for example, if it were made from an old Slinky it likely wouldn’t work).  It is not a simple starting point; it was intelligently selected.  Nonetheless, I realize that in coming up with an analogy we have to start somewhere.  So I will not complain about an intelligently-selected starting point.  However, the involvement of intelligence at any other point along the way invalidates the entire exercise as an analogy to a Darwinian process.  Because Darwinism wholly rejects intelligent direction, Darwinists must agree that the involvement of intelligence at any point in a scenario (after the agreed-on starting point) is fatal.  That point occurs immediately for our mousetrap.

The second mousetrap (above) has a spring and a platform.  One of the extended arms stands under tension at the very edge of the platform.  The idea is that if a mouse in the vicinity jiggles the trap, the end of the arm slips over the edge and comes rushing down, and may pin the mouse’s paw or tail against the platform.  Now, the first thing to notice is that the arms of the spring are in a different relationship to each other than in the first trap.  To get to the configuration of the spring in the second trap from the configuration in the first, it seems to me one would have to proceed through the following steps^[4]:  (1) twist the arm that has one bend through about 90° so that the end segment is perpendicular to the axis of the spring and points toward the platform; (2) twist the other arm through about 180° so the first segment is pointing opposite to where it originally pointed (the exact value of the rotations depend on the lengths of the arms); (3) shorten one arm so that its length is less than the distance from the top of the platform to the floor (so that the end doesn’t first hit the floor before pinning the mouse).  While the arms were being rotated and adjusted, the original one-piece trap would have lost function, and the second trap would not yet be working.

At this point we bring in a new piece, the platform, which is a simple piece of wood.  One now has a spring resting on top of a platform.  However, the spring cannot be under tension in this configuration unless it is fixed in place.  Notice that in the second mousetrap, not only has a platform been added, but two (barely visible) staples have been added as well.  Thus we have gone not from a one piece to a two-piece trap, but from a one to a four piece trap.  Two staples are needed; if there were only one staple positioned as drawn, the tensed spring would be able to rotate out of position.  The staples have to be positioned carefully with respect to the platform.  They have to be arranged within a very narrow tolerance so that one arm of the spring teeters perilously on the edge of the platform or the trap doesn’t work.  If either of the staples is moved significantly from where they are drawn, the trap won’t function.  I should add that I did not emphasize the staples in my book because I was trying to make a simple point and didn’t want to exhaust the readers with tedium.  However, someone who wishes to seriously propose that the mousetrap I pictured is approachable in the tiny steps required by Darwinian processes would indeed have to deal with all the details, including the staples.

It is important to remember that the placement, size, shape, or any important feature (not just “piece”) of a system can’t just be chosen to fit the purposes of a person who wishes to simulate a Darwinian process.  Rather, each significant feature has to be justified as being a small improvement.  In the real world the occasional unselected feature might occur which serendipitously will be useful in the future, but invoking more than one unselected (neutral, nonadaptive) event in a Darwinian scenario seems to me impermissible because the improbability of the joint events starts to soar.  In our current case the unselected event we are allowed was used up when we began with a special starting point.

I think the problems of rearranging the already-functioning first mousetrap shows the general difficulties one expects in trying to re-arrange an already-functioning system into something else.  The requirements (“selection pressures”) that make a component suitable for one specialized system will generally make it unsuitable for another system without significant modification.  Another problem we can note is that the second mousetrap is not an obvious improvement over the first; it is difficult to see how it would function any better than the one-piece trap.  It’s just that it’s on the road to where we want to see the system end up—on the road to a distant target.  That, of course, is intelligent direction.

The transition from the first to the second mousetrap is not analogous to a Darwinian process because:  (1) a number of separate steps are required to make the transition; (2) each step has to fall within a narrow range of tolerance to get to the target trap; and (3) function is lost until the transition is completed.  In fact, the situation of going from the first trap to the second trap is best viewed not as a transition, but as building a different kind of trap using some old materials from the first trap (with major modifications) and some new materials.  Far from being an analogy to a Darwinian process, the construction of the second trap is an example of intelligent design.

From the second trap to the third

The way the traps are drawn (below), the transition from the second to the third trap doesn’t seem to be a big step.  Both drawings are superficially similar.  But when one thinks about the transition in detail problems crop up.  The first problem is that a new piece is added—the hammer.  Unlike the platform that was added in the last transition (which I did not object to), the hammer is not a simple object.  Rather it contains several bends.  The angles of the bends have to be within relatively narrow tolerances for the end of the hammer to be positioned precisely at the edge of the platform, otherwise the system doesn’t work.  For the same reason, the length of the second segment of the hammer has to be within a narrow range of values.  How does the hammer get into the third trap?  It would seem that the extended arm of the second trap has to be held up while the newly-fashioned hammer is inserted through the tunnel of the spring.  Thus an intelligent agent has to actively push parts around to get to the configuration of the third trap.  Again, there is no obvious improvement in function of the third trap compared to the second or first.  Both the second and third traps appear to do the same thing as the first, but require more parts.  Such an event is not expected in a Darwinian scenario.  It seems the only reason they attract our attention is because they appear to be along the path we wish the process would go.  That is intelligent design.

Figure 2. The second trap (top) and third trap (bottom).

From the third trap to the fourth

Going from the third trap to the fourth requires major rearrangements.  The hammer is bent, lengthened, and an extra segment is added to it.  Two new pieces are added:  the “hold-down bar” and a staple to hold down the hold-down bar.  The end of the hold-down bar is endowed with a closed curl so that the staple has something to hang on to.  The staple again has to be positioned in a specific region of the trap.  Depending on details, this configuration may be an improvement over the first three traps because it appears that, depending on the tension of the spring, the trap could kill a mouse outright, rather than just pinning it (yet that feature could probably easily be built into the earlier versions).  On the other hand the arm of the spring is now being pushed through a much greater displacement in the fourth trap than previous versions.  It seems unlikely a spring optimized for use in earlier traps would work well in the fourth trap (unless of course we are “looking ahead”).  Rather than a “transition,” this process is again better viewed as building a new trap using refashioned parts of the old trap plus new ones.  This is intelligent design.

Figure 3. The third trap (top) and fourth trap (bottom).

From the fourth trap to the fifth

This is left as an exercise for the reader.

Figure 4. The fourth trap (top) and fifth trap (bottom).

Discussion

I have to admit that even I find it tedious to discuss mousetraps in such excruciating detail.  But the critical point is that that is exactly the level at which Darwinian evolution would have to work in the cell.  Every relevant detail has to fit or the system fails.  If an arm is too long or an angle not right or a staple placed incorrectly, the mouse dances free.  If you want to get to a certain system, but the road there isn’t a series of continual improvements, Darwinism won’t take you there.  It’s important for those interested in these issues to realize that, when evaluating descriptive evolutionary scenarios (as opposed to experiments—see below), one has to attend to the tiniest details (as I did here) to see if intelligence is directing the show.  On the other hand, if one doesn’t pay the strictest attention, Darwinian scenarios look much more plausible because one sees only the possibilities, not the problems.  It’s easy for a speaker to persuade an audience that the McDonald mousetraps represent a series of Darwinian intermediates on the way to a standard trap—that they show irreducible complexity is no big deal.  All one has to do is gloss over the difficulties.  But although our minds can skip over details, nature can’t.

In the real world of biology the staples, bends, and so forth would be features of molecules, of proteins in particular.  If two proteins don’t bind each other in the correct orientation (aren’t stapled right), if they aren’t placed in the right positions, if their new activity isn’t regulated correctly, if many details aren’t exactly correct, then the putative Darwinian pathway is blocked.  Now, it’s hard, almost impossible, for persons without the appropriate science background to tell where such difficulties would occur in Darwinian scenarios for blood clotting or ciliary function or other biological systems.  When they read Darwinian stories in a book or hear them in lectures, they generally have no independent information to judge the scenario.  In such a situation one should ask oneself, “If a simple mousetrap requires intelligent design, what is the likelihood that the much more complicated molecular machines of the cell could be built step-by-tiny-Darwinian-step?” Keeping that question in mind will foster a healthy skepticism toward optimistic scenarios.

Why do the McDonald mousetraps look persuasive to some people?  Certainly one reason is the way they are drawn.  Drawings of four of the five traps are dominated by the image of the large rectangular platform and prominent spring in the center.  That makes them all look pretty much the same.  The staples are barely visible and the various metal bars protruding here and there seem like insignificant details.  In fact, they are critical.  Another reason is that the scenario starts with the completed mousetrap.  Any question about the placement of the parts, their size, stiffness, and so on doesn’t easily arise because the parts were already placed where they needed to be for the ultimate goal in the original drawing (that is, the fifth mousetrap here, which is the first drawing in McDonald’s series) and their properties could be inferred from the fact we started with a working trap.  The universe of possibilities was tightly but implicitly circumscribed by the already-completed starting point.  A third reason it seems persuasive is that the series is always presented as parts being removed from the complete mousetrap.  Looking at it in such a backward manner—the reverse of what evolution would have to do—obscures the teleology of the building process.  Going in a forward direction there is strong reason to think we would not end up at the fifth mousetrap when starting from the first, because the first works as well as the second and third, so greater complexity would be disfavored.  In going backwards, however, lesser complexity is favored so it seems “natural” to move to simpler traps.  Yet Darwinian evolution can’t work like that.

A final reason for the persuasiveness of the example we can call the “Clever Hans effect.” Clever Hans was the name of a horse who seemed to be pretty good at arithmetic.  Its owner would give Hans a simple math problem such as 5+5, and the horse would stamp his hoof ten times, then stop.  It eventually turned out that Clever Hans could pick up unconscious cues from its owner, who might raise his eyebrows or tilt his head when the horse’s stamping reached the right value.  The horse could even pick up unintentional cues from other people, not just the owner, who also apparently gave telltale reactions.  In the case of Clever Hans, the human intelligence of the owner was inadvertently attributed to the horse.  In my experience the same is invariably true of Darwinian scenarios—human intelligence is critical to guiding the scenario through difficulties toward the “proper” goal, but the intelligence is then attributed to natural selection.  As with Clever Hans, the guidance is usually unconscious, but is intelligent nonetheless.

Clever Hans was exposed as mathematically clueless by carefully controlled experiments.  To see whether natural selection can work wonders on its own—without the aid of human intelligence— we also have to do carefully controlled experiments.  One way to do this is to ask bacteria in the laboratory if they can evolve irreducibly complex biochemical systems.  (Kenneth Miller has called this the “acid test.”) Bacteria are a good choice because they can be grown in huge numbers with short generation times—just what Darwinian evolution needs.  However, when this was repeatedly tried over the course of 25 years for bacteria missing a comparatively simple biochemical system (called the “lac operon”) natural selection came up empty (see “The Acid Test” on this website).  It could make the small changes typically termed “microevolution,” but whenever it had to do a couple things at once, such as would have to be done to make irreducibly complex systems, it got stuck.^[5]  Like Clever Hans on his own, natural selection seems to have much less intelligence than we had given it credit for.  There is currently no experimental evidence to show that natural selection can get around irreducible complexity.

Darwinian scenarios, either for building mousetraps or biochemical systems, are very easy to believe if we aren’t willing or able to scrutinize the smallest details, or to ask for experimental evidence.  They invite us to admire the intelligence of natural selection.  But the intelligence we are admiring is our own.

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp

 

[grigorije22]

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.¹ However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.² However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)^3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.^5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.

I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.⁷ My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.⁷

References

1. Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
2. Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88 (20): 9051-9055.
3. Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. Genome Biology. 9 (10): R155.
4. Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. Cytogenetics and Genome Research. 126 (1-2): 12-20.
5. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1663-1672.
6. Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes. Genome Research. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
7. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Cite this article: Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. 2013. New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion. Acts & Facts. 42 (12).

http://www.icr.org/article/7833/

[Volim_Sina_Bozjeg]

Lakse je verovati da je bog stvorio trenutno poznatih blizu 2 miliona vrsta zivotinja, a da ih je Noje sve strpao u barku u parovima, a neke u 7 parova, nego da se to sve desilo evolucijom.

Gde si ti video da neko veruje da je Bog prestao da stvara posle barkice?

 

Barkica je ponela stvorene vrste do tada da se ne bi bacilo nešto u kanticu znaš....( mož i bukvalno što se mene tiče)

 

Svašta će još stvoriti Bog a i ne moraš do Stvoritelja odlaziti da mu se zahvališ na životu poneseš mu zlatni satić za penziju i zahvališ mu se na završenom stvaranju uz tople prasiće,,,,

[grigorije22]

Articles

 

Mouse Study Shows 'Junk DNA' Is Actually Required by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are teeming with functional activity—and a new study shows they are actually required for life.¹

The genome of humans and other animals is composed of more than just DNA sequences that produce proteins—there are also many other types of sequences that do not code for proteins. The non-protein-coding genes are diverse, with some being very short and others being quite long. In fact, the long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are actually very similar to protein-coding genes in their regulation and genomic structure.^2,3 These lncRNAs are found all over the genome, in between protein-coding genes as well as inside them. Some even overlap protein-coding sequences.

The many different types of lncRNAs researched have been shown to be involved in gene regulation, chromosome structure, protein production, and other cellular processes. In addition, a variety of new studies is also showing that lncRNAs are key players in development and disease. However, the specific nature of many lncRNAs has been difficult to fully ascertain even though their importance has been clearly correlated with many cellular processes and traits.^2,3

In the extensive analysis of protein-coding genes over the past decade, researchers have bio-engineered strains of mice—called “knockout mice”—with artificially created mutations in specific genes. Because mammals like mice have two sets of chromosomes, one from the father and one from the mother, it is possible to mutate a single copy of a gene and perpetuate the mutation by carefully breeding the mice and studying the effects. To more fully examine the role of lncRNAs in growth and development, researchers are using this same technique to “knock out” specific lncRNAs genes one by one.

In this new study, researchers selected only lncRNAs found completely outside the genomic regions associated with protein-coding genes; these are called long intergenic noncoding RNAs, or lincRNAs (a subset of lncRNAs).¹ They also carefully screened the lincRNAs to make sure that none of them associated with ribosomes (protein-producing machinery in the cell) to produce small proteins, which some lincRNAs do.⁴ Thus, the final set of 18 different lincRNAs were strictly non-coding RNAs that performed some sort of regulatory function. These were then used to create knockout mice for each lincRNA gene.

Three of the 18 lincRNA gene knockouts showed lethality and were associated with the development of important tissues in many different organs, including lungs, heart, testes, brain, thymus, stomach, colon, and brain. One lincRNA gene was shown to be a key regulator of the earliest stages of embryo development before any organs are even visible. Other lincRNA mutants were not lethal but still caused severe growth and developmental problems, including difficulties in the early stages of brain formation.

While many evolutionist naysayers have tried to play down the recent discoveries of pervasive genome functionality, their task is clearly becoming much more difficult as research progresses. Interestingly, the critics of pervasive genome functionality are those who are typically sitting on the sidelines in the evolution vs. creation argument and are not the real players doing the research. Widespread functionality in the genome is not the result of random mutational processes but instead comes from intelligent design and complex engineering. Even little mice bear witness to this fact.

References

1. Sauvageau, M. et al. 2013. Multiple knockout mouse models reveal lincRNAs are required for life and brain development. eLife. 2: e01749.
2. Rinn, J. L. and H. Y. Chang. 2012. Genome regulation by long noncoding RNAs. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 81: 145-66.
3. Clark, M. B. et al. 2013. The dark matter rises: the expanding world of regulatory RNAs. Essays in Biochemistry. 54: 1-16.
4. Tomkins, J. 'smORFs': Functional Little Genome Gems Confront Evolution. Creation Science Update. Posted on October 14, 2013, accessed January 9, 2014.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

http://www.icr.org/article/7875/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[CecaV]

.....  Originally published at the Discovery Institute’s website.

Darwinian scenarios, either for building mousetraps or biochemical systems, are very easy to believe if we aren’t willing or able to scrutinize the smallest details, or to ask for experimental evidence.  They invite us to admire the intelligence of natural selection.  But the intelligence we are admiring is our own.

Dokle bre više postovanje ovih šatro-naučnih članaka?    Zar ti nije dovoljno da postaviš link na njihovu stranicu?   

A što se tiče njihovog "scutinizing smallest details":  koji su im naučni radovi, na kojim konferencijama su objavljeni?  Da li ću opet, ako se malo zadubim u objasnjenja Discovery Institute-a, da pročitam kako je Biblija nepogrešiva u objašnjenju nastanka živog sveta?

[Ignjatije]

http://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2014&mm=01&dd=15&nav_id=800309