Зоран Ђуровић: Саша Кнежевић: ЕНДОГЕНИ РЕТРОВИРУСИ – ДОКАЗ МАКРОЕВОЛУЦИЈЕ?

[cloudking]

пре 58 минута, Juanito рече

Хвала. 

Али свакако нису од горила настале шимпанзе, а од шимпанза људи. Не знам одакле ваде то. Ниједна данашња врста није предак неке друге данашње врсте, нити је предак нека фиксирана врста, више просек. 

Овако некако онда?

 

Moze li to malo jednostavnije? Treba kreacionisti da ukapiraju... ne zaboravi.

[Avocado]

Krenuo sam da čitam ali mislim da ću svakako razdeliti odgovor na više komada, kako mi vreme dozvoljava... pa da krenem sa čistom zabavom...

 

Цитат

 

Conflicts in the Base of the Tree of Life

 

Problems first arose when molecular biologists sequenced genes from the three basic domains of life -- bacteria, archaea, and eukarya -- but those genes did not allow these basic groups of life to be resolved into a treelike pattern. In 2009, the journal New Scientist published a cover story titled, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life" which explained these quandaries:

 

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.¹⁰²

 

This sort of data led biochemist W. Ford Doolittle to explain that "Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree."¹⁰³New Scientist put it this way: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life ... But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence."¹⁰⁴

 

Many evolutionists sometimes reply that these problems arise only when studying microorganisms like bacteria -- organisms which can swap genes through a process called "horizontal gene transfer," thereby muddying the signal of evolutionary relationships. But this objection isn't quite true, since the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping is not prevalent. Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, explains:

 

Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.¹⁰⁵

 

Likewise, the New Scientist article notes that "research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either."¹⁰⁶ The article explains what happened when microbiologist Michael Syvanen tried to create a tree showing evolutionary relationships using 2000 genes from a diverse group of animals:

 

He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. ... the genes were sending mixed signals. ... Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another.¹⁰⁷

 

The data were so difficult to resolve into a tree that Syvanen lamented, "We've just annihilated the tree of life."¹⁰⁸ Many other papers in the technical literature recognize similar problems.

 

Ceo ovaj deo se zasniva na članku iz New Scientist-a iz 2009. godine, koji ima i prateći uvodnik:

http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

a uvodnik su pisali ljudi sa proročkim sposobnostima:

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a
third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened.
None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered
universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New
Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts
ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are
deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

[Avocado]

пре 6 часа, Zoran Đurović рече

Drugo. Ako ta logika važi – to jest da su ljudi postali od šimpanza a ovaj od gorile

[Bokisd]

Samo jos da otkrijemo, od koga smo svi postali i dobili pocetak zivota.......i gorile, i simpanze, i ljudi. 
 

[drvce]

пре 38 минута, Bokisd рече

Samo jos da otkrijemo, od koga smo svi postali i dobili pocetak zivota.......i gorile, i simpanze, i ljudi. 
 

Jos samo da otkrijemo kako se sredina nastavlja na pocetak i kraj na sredinu, sve je to jedno evolucijsko (ili bolje reci evolucijanersko) zamesteljstvo...

[Ula Mark]

On 31. 1. 2017 at 13:45, Juanito рече

Не пада ми на памет ни да читим све ово, а камоли да одговарам на све, а камоли да се расправљам. Нећи одговарати ни на један одговор на ову поруку, престао сам пре неколико година да улазим у бемсислене расправе са креационистима. 

Али ево, методом случајног узорковања, поглед ми паде на цитирани део текста, те кликнух на рад. Да ли је могуће да Кнежевић толико не разуме ово о чему покушава да пише? Прво, нико не каже да су људи постали од шимпанза, а ови од гориле, већ да људи, шимпанзе и гориле имају заједничког претка (евидентно из ДНК). Оно што није јасно су детаљи. Када је и како дошли до еволутивног раздвајања. Идентификовање ретро-вируса у геному шимпанзи и горила, који није у геномоу човека, расветљава управо то питање. Све то пише већ у апстракту линкованог рада.

Kao obično – ništa …

Jedan bi da raspravlja a nije ni pročitao tekst ... Koja arogancija iliti predrasude ;)))

[Ula Mark]

On 31. 1. 2017 at 19:35, Avocado рече

. Expect to find excerpts

ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are
deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

Strawman argument – tipični.

Niko ovde ne priča o biolozima ni njihovim životima, odlukama. Već o faktima.

Ako sam ja otac malog Mirka, kao što tvrdi njegova majka, to će sud da utvrdi ne na osnovi koliko biologa veruje ili ne veruje u to, da li sam ja otac, već će tražiti DNK analizu. Ako ona utvrdi, da ja nisam otac, onda je svako dalje nastojanje tvrditi da sam ja otac suludo.

Dakle, TE ako tvrdi nešto u skladu sa teorijom, a to isto ne može da dokaže (a još gore nema ni mehanizma koji bi to mogao da omogući), a forenzički podaci govore suprotno … TE je pala, osim za ideologe TE. Ali u ideologiji ovde ne raspravljamo, već o nauci.

Ali ko gubi, ima pravo da se ljuti ...  

[cloudking]

On 1/31/2017 at 19:55, Bokisd рече

Samo jos da otkrijemo, od koga smo svi postali i dobili pocetak zivota.......i gorile, i simpanze, i ljudi. 
 

Pa otvori temu o tomoe pa ce diskutujemo... ovo je tema o evoluciji pa da je ne trujemo oftopikom...

[Кратос]

On 1/31/2017 at 19:55, Bokisd рече

Samo jos da otkrijemo, od koga smo svi postali i dobili pocetak zivota.......i gorile, i simpanze, i ljudi. 
 

Od presvetoga groma koji opalio po sred praiskonske juhice i onda se aminokiseline složile tačno tako da su formirale prvu samoreplicirijajuću ćeliju.Ostalo je istorija.

E sad dal je grom poslao,Jahve,Perun,Ilija(znaš kad je Isus na krstu pa kaže Eli,Eli el šavatani a anorod kaže gle ovaj zove Iliju-sumnjivo mnogo) ili je možda to bio Zevs je već stvar interpretacije.

[cloudking]

пре 34 минута, Ula Mark рече

Dakle, TE ako tvrdi nešto u skladu sa teorijom, a to isto ne može da dokaže

Koje?

 

пре 34 минута, Ula Mark рече

ući), a forenzički podaci govore suprotno

Koji podaci?

 

пре 35 минута, Ula Mark рече

TE je pala

Gde si to vodeo leba ti? Pala je u glavama kreacionista ali oni ionako nisu ni kadri da je razumeju od starta tako da je nebtno, a sto se tice janog naucnog diskursa trenutno nema govora  ni o poljuljanju a kamoli nekakvom "padanju"... nego ti projektujes svoje zelje i snove na drustvo...

 

Kao kad bi sad rekao "Nebo je zeleno" samo zato sto se tebi tako svidja... ne moze tako... mora svi da se sloze oko necega da bi to nesto postalo opste prihvaceno, inace je cist sarlatanizam...

[Ula Mark]

Hm, ti onako malo navijački na galamu misliš zabrisati fakte. Čitaj članak. I ne moraš da me se plašiš. Nemam ja ništa protiv TE. Ja bih čak voleo da je to tačno, ako bi ti zbog toga bio srećan.

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas ...

 

[Avocado]

On 7.3.2017. at 12:21, Ula Mark рече

Strawman argument – tipični.

Strawmen argument može da se odnosi na nečiju repliku... ovde je u pitanju predikcija... i to ispunjena.

 

Цитат

Niko ovde ne priča o biolozima ni njihovim životima, odlukama. Već o faktima.

Autor ne priča o faktima, već citira naučnike koji se ne slažu sa njim, izvlačeći iz konteksta tvrdnje tih naučnika koje se naizgled slažu sa njegovim tvrdnjama... prilično poznata taktika beskrupuloznih, nemoralnih ljudi...

 

Цитат

Ako sam ja otac malog Mirka, kao što tvrdi njegova majka, to će sud da utvrdi ne na osnovi koliko biologa veruje ili ne veruje u to, da li sam ja otac, već će tražiti DNK analizu. Ako ona utvrdi, da ja nisam otac, onda je svako dalje nastojanje tvrditi da sam ja otac suludo.

I ovde si pogrešio... jer se DNK analiza zasniva na teorijama biologa o nasleđivanju DNK... sam rezultat DNK ti ne govori ništa ako zanemariš važeće teorije genetičara.

 

Цитат

 

Dakle, TE ako tvrdi nešto u skladu sa teorijom, a to isto ne može da dokaže (a još gore nema ni mehanizma koji bi to mogao da omogući), a forenzički podaci govore suprotno … TE je pala, osim za ideologe TE. Ali u ideologiji ovde ne raspravljamo, već o nauci.

Ali ko gubi, ima pravo da se ljuti ...  

 

Naravno. Imate prava koliko god hoćete da se ljutite... da pokušavate da fabrikujete rezultate... da se pravite da ne razumete teoriju... da baljezgate o njoj jer je nerazumete... kao i da u prilog svojih tvrdnji citirate naučike koji na vaše tvrdnje zapravo umiru od smeha... sve to imate prava i sve to očekujemo od vas...

 

[Ula Mark]

Najnovije naučno otkriće, staro svega nekoliko »sati«. Šah mat!

Uzdržaću se od komentara, ja sam svoje rekao

 

Three Ways that Transposable Elements Demolish Evolutionary Theory

Cornelius Hunter

March 14, 2017, 2:25 AM

Transposable elements just don’t make sense. These so-called “jumping genes” are segments of junk DNA that insert themselves at random in our genomes. That is the evolutionary interpretation of these genetic units, but how and why do they move about, and why don’t they wreak havoc on the genome?

The answers to these questions, which have been emerging in recent years, is that transposable elements are exquisite, finely tuned, highly functional molecular machines that contradict evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists have a long, failed history of presumed disutility — after all, the world arose by chance, surely it doesn’t work very well — and transposable elements are just one more example of this failed prediction. But the junk-to-hero story is only one of three ways that transposable elements utterly demolish evolutionary theory. The other two prongs in this Darwin-destroying triad are serendipity and pattern.

By serendipity, I am referring to the rather awkward findings, which are undeniable at this point, that if evolution is true, then it must have come about by highly complex, non-adaptive, mechanisms. From diploid genetics to horizontal gene transfer, alternate gene splicing, genetic regulation, epigenetics, mechanisms that cause adaptive mutations, and transposable elements, evolution must have bumbled along by luckily constructing fantastically complex mechanisms. Those mechanisms would provide no immediate adaptive value, yet somehow would persist and become vital agents in evolutionary history. Simply put, evolution must have created evolution in a most unlikely (astronomically unlikely) set of circumstances. That’s serendipity, not science, and transposable elements heap more fuel onto the fire.

By pattern, I am referring to another set of awkward findings, again undeniable, that the pattern of structures observed across the species consistently contradicts evolution’s predictions. One of those contradictions are the enormous differences found in otherwise allied species.

All three of these contradictions — disutility, serendipity, and pattern — are on display in a new, systematic study of transposable elements out of Didier Trono’s lab in Switzerland. The study details the interactions between transposable elements and a class of proteins. The findings indicate the complexity and interdependency of these molecular mechanisms. As the press release admits:

Long considered as junk DNA, transposable elements are now recognized as influencing the expression of genes. … the extent of this regulation and how it is harnessed were so far unknown. EPFL scientists have now taken the first extensive look at a family of ~350 human proteins, showing that they establish a complex interplay with transposable elements … KZFPs can convert transposable elements in exquisitely fine-tuned regulatory platforms that influence the expression of genes, which likely takes place at all stages of development and in all human tissues. … It is a highly combinatorial and versatile system … As a field, epigenetics has come into prominence in recent years, revealing a previously unimagined complexity and elegance in genetics.

Not exactly junk DNA. And of course all of this would require large amounts of serendipity. For evolutionists are now forced to say that transposable elements would have to have played a, err, key role in evolution itself. Evolution would have had to have constructed this highly specific, detailed, system including hundreds of proteins and genetic elements, with hundreds of specific interactions, providing no immediate benefit. As Trono explains:

The vast majority of KZFPs binds to specific motifs in transposable elements. For each KZFP we were able to assign one subset of transposable elements, and also found that one transposable element can often interact with several KZFPs.

Finally, all of this contradicts the expected common descent pattern. This failure has become so common we now have non-evolutionary terminology, such as “species-specific” and “lineage-specific.” The paper uses the term “species-restricted”:

KZFPs partner with transposable elements to build a largely species-restricted layer of epigenetic regulation

Species-restricted? In other words, the designs we are discovering in biology are unique to particular species. This is precisely the opposite of what evolution expects. Note also the teleological language (which as usual is evident in the infinitive form): The proteins “partner” with the transposable elements “to build” a largely “species-restricted” layer of epigenetic regulation. This is a classic example of evolution’s absurd creation-story language.

The contradictory pattern was, of course, unsuspected. As Trono explains:

KZFPs contribute to make human biology unique. Together with their genomic targets, they likely influence every single event in human physiology and pathology, and do so by being largely species-specific — the general system exists in many vertebrates, but most of its components are different in each case. … This paper lifts the lid off something that had been largely unsuspected: the tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation.

Yes, it was largely unsuspected. For what these findings reveal is a tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation. In other words, we would need proteins and genetic elements to evolve, via independent and yet interdependent, random mutations, to construct an entirely new set of genetic regulation instructions. This is astronomically unlikely, no matter how many millions of years are available.

Photo: Jumping proboscis monkey, by Charlesjsharp (Own work, from Sharp Photography, sharpphotography) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Cross-posted at Darwin’s God.

Tags

- See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/three-ways-that-transposable-elements-demolish-evolutionary-theory/#sthash.FBS6OXph.dpuf

[Avocado]

пре 10 часа, Ula Mark рече

Najnovije naučno otkriće, staro svega nekoliko »sati«. Šah mat!

Jel si ti to kreacionistički blog nazvao najnovijim naučnim otkrićem???

 

Цитат

Three Ways that Transposable Elements Demolish Evolutionary Theory

Cornelius Hunter

March 14, 2017, 2:25 AM

 

Ovo je baš super... kako mali Perica komentariše naučni rad koji ne sadrži Pericine zaključke... skoro pa kao Cosmos edited for rednecks iz one epizode Family Guy-a: