Поставите питања везана за еволуциону биологију

[Ronald]

Ne znam što mi inputiraš nešto što ja nigde nisam ni rekao.Niti sporim dostignuća iz biologije,niti osporavam TE kao naučnu teoriju.Ne znam da li si pratio al na onoj drugoj temi,ne mogu da setim kako se zove,rekao sam da je TE najbolje naučno objašnjenje razvoja života koje imamo trenutno.

Ne imputiram ti samo ne znas sta je sta, jer u suprotnom ne bi ismijavao nesto o cemu nisi nista procitao vec bi shvatio da nauka koja je stara 150 godina tek treba da objasni vecinu stvari. Budi malo mudar, i ostavi se pseudonaucnog kritikovanja tipa ne znaju ovo, nisu ovo, pa normalno da nisu jer da je suprotno znali bi sve moguce procese u prirodi.

[Кратос]

Da li je moguce da si toliko neupucen i tvrdoglav a sto je odlika mnogih zadrtih pravoslavac i gord, kazes ja ti ostavio kreacionisticki link, da li ti uopste znas ko je napisao taj rad. Gledajte ljudi za koji on rad kaze da je kreacionisticki, heheheh, a fora je sto se nalazi na kreacionistickom sajtu da bi ga ti nekako procitao, e stavrno si smijesan. https://www.google.ba/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiGyJv39anLAhXIfiwKHaiEAuUQFgg8MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trueorigin.org%2Fsex01.php&usg=AFQjCNEp9J4r3bg2czkCHTgqMEZrTbv7MA

 

Izvori koje su ova dvojica biologa koristila su sve radovi najrelevatnijih biologa i vecinom su ateisti ili agnostici, kad vec neces da citas ono sto je Akvi predlozio.

 

Brad Harrub jedan od autora je i hriscanin.

Ronaldo el ti to mene zajebavaš?

 

T he TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest  response to what in fairness can only be described as  evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins).  This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website.

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.  This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

 

The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

 

1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science

2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.  Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

 

This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...

[Кратос]

Ne imputiram ti samo ne znas sta je sta, jer u suprotnom ne bi ismijavao nesto o cemu nisi nista procitao vec bi shvatio da nauka koja je stara 150 godina tek treba da objasni vecinu stvari. Budi malo mudar, i ostavi se pseudonaucnog kritikovanja tipa ne znaju ovo, nisu ovo, pa normalno da nisu jer da je suprotno znali bi sve moguce procese u prirodi.

Gde sam ismejavao?Znam čim pitam ili konstatujem da ne postoji objašnjenje ja ismejavam?

[Ronald]

 

Ronaldo el ti to mene zajebavaš?

 

T he TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest  response to what in fairness can only be described as  evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins).  This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website.

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.  This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

 

The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

 

1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science

2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.  Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

 

This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...

 

Rekao sam ti da je sajt kreacionisticki, cak se i autori zovu kreacionistima i ako su biolozi ali bitan je njihov rad koji je relevantan jer se upravo pozivaju na najbolje naucne radove i nista nisu pogresno napisali jer sam citao Mayr, Riedly, Graham, Cavalli Sforcu. Bitan je rad, zamisli kad i kreacionisti o ovome znaju napisati dobar rad koji je naucan.

[Aquilius Cratus]

Dakle osim nedostatka prelaznih formi još jedna velika rupa u TE je i nedostatak bilo kakvog objašnjenja mehanizma nastanka polova.

 

Nema nikakvih nedostataka prelaznih formi niti nedostatka objasnjenja nastanka polova, bez obizra sto je potonje pitanje zaista veoma slozeno, ima samo razmimoilazenja u standardima koji su neophodni za prihvatljivo objasnjenje.  To je ovde, u ovakvim diskusijama, istinski problem. A ne to da teorija evolucija ima objasnjavalacke pukotine koje je dovode u pitanje, tako nesto ne postoji.

[Ronald]

Gde sam ismejavao?Znam čim pitam ili konstatujem da ne postoji objašnjenje ja ismejavam?

Problem je sto je tvoja kritika nista drugo do ismijavanje, jer nemas nikakve argumente, da si mudar shvatio bi da niko u nauci i ne kaze da ima resenje za sve, samo sto oni tragaju za njima, ne uvlace Boga tamo gdje mu nije mjesto, da bi ga posle eliminisali kad nauka nesto novo otkrije.

[Кратос]

Nema nikakvih nedostataka prelaznih formi niti nedostatka objasnjenja nastanka polova, bez obizra sto je potonje pitanje zaista veoma slozeno, ima samo razmimoilazenja u standardima koji su neophodni za prihvatljivo objasnjenje.  To je ovde, u ovakvim diskusijama, istinski problem. A ne to da teorija evolucija ima objasnjavalacke pukotine koje je dovode u pitanje, tako nesto ne postoji.

Aj da uzmem na primer Lucy.Šta je ona genetski?

[Ronald]

Kratos 

 

Kad citas nesto, procitaj rad nije bitno gdje se on nalazi, imas reference i provjeri sve autore, jer upravo u ovom radu oni se pozivaju na najvece kriticare kreacionizma Mayr, Riedly i Kichera, nisu nista pogresno rekli i ako su kreacionisti i rad je na kreacionistickom sajtu. 

[Кратос]

Problem je sto je tvoja kritika nista drugo do ismijavanje, jer nemas nikakve argumente, da si mudar shvatio bi da niko u nauci i ne kaze da ima resenje za sve, samo sto oni tragaju za njima, ne uvlace Boga tamo gdje mu nije mjesto, da bi ga posle eliminisali kad nauka nesto novo otkrije.

A ko traži da se Bog uvuče u bilo koju teoriju u nauci?Gde si ti video da ja to tražim?To što ti doživljavaš kao ismjavanje je tvoj subjektivni utisak.

[Aquilius Cratus]

Aj da uzmem na primer Lucy.Šta je ona genetski?

 

Kako mislis sta je genetski? Mislis taksonomski? Australopitek.

[Кратос]

Kako mislis sta je genetski? Mislis taksonomski? Australopitek.

Mislim na njen DNK.

[Кратос]

Kratos 

 

Kad citas nesto, procitaj rad nije bitno gdje se on nalazi, imas reference i provjeri sve autore, jer upravo u ovom radu oni se pozivaju na najvece kriticare kreacionizma Mayr, Riedly i Kichera, nisu nista pogresno rekli i ako su kreacionisti i rad je na kreacionistickom sajtu. 

Ma ne smeta meni to uopšte odakle je.Ne čitam ništa nikada sa predrasudama.

[grigorije22]

Mislim na njen DNK.

Majmun.

[Ronald]

Imas cetiri hipoteze:

 

1. The lottery principle

2. The tangled bank hipothesis

3.Red Queen hipothesis

4. DNA repair hipothesis

 

To ne ugrozava TE, vec se samo stvaraju nove hipoteze u oviru teorije, bilo mi je cudno da neki kreacionisti mogu napisati ovakav rad pozivajuci se na ove  ozbiljne naucnike.

[Кратос]

Majmun.

Ako je majmun kako onda može da bude prelazna forma?Zar ne bi trebalo da u genomu postoje neke mutacije koje ukazuju da se ona menjala,da je evoluirala,da je da tako kažem na ,,putu,, prelaska u novu vrstu?