Поставите питања везана за еволуциону биологију

[Милан Меденица :)]

Pisao si o tome?????? Sta ne vaze vise metakosmicke i metaistorijske price? Opet si smislio nesto

novo?

A priča o multiverzumu nije metakosmička ili metaistorijska priča? Zaista nećeš dugo proći bez druge opomene.

@Милан Меденица ака Меда Брутал

Ако ћемо помислити да је пре пада било рајско постојање, другачије од садашњег постојања, онда ће несумњиво наше мишљење бити изложено оцени као ,,metakosmička ili metaistorijska priča''. Јер почетак нашег постојања јесте у тачки Великог праска, а рајско постојање могуће је да је било једино пре тога. (Велики прасак носи постојање од свог почетка до данас у категоријама смрти, односно категоријама наше еволуције).

Дакле, ,,метакосмичка или метаисторијака'' прича је неизбежна из перспективе науке, исто као што је стварање Адама и Еве такође слична прича са аспекта науке.

што се баби снило ...

ја лепо и прецизно написах интервал времена  0205_whistling

[Milan Nikolic]

Ниси био довољно концизан а нисам ни видео где спомињеш ,,интервал времена''.

Све у свему, чак и тај интервал времена јесте уствари релативна категорија из перспективе некога који има моћ над временом. А тај неко је сâм Бог. Знаш како апостол Петар каже: ,,Али ово једно да вам не буде непознато, љубазни, да је један дан пред Господом као хиљаду година, и хиљаду година као један дан'' (2Пет.3,8).

Зашто не би било могуће да Бог узме човека и проведе га кроз релативност времена у односу на осталу творевину? На пример, да узме мене и да за то време не доживим ништа, односно да ми искуство времена буде само један тренутак, али када ме буде вратио на Земљу, да онда видим тебе Медо, остарелог за рецимо 30 година.

Управо је то могућност искуства Адама и Еве у односу на целокупну творевину. Они су могли да доживе ,,пад'', као што се каже ,,изгнање'', у тренутку, без трајања времена. А остала творевина - доживљујући ,,пад'' - могла је проћи кроз читаву еволуцију са почетком кроз Велики прасак.

Може ли сада неко да каже зашто ово није могућа претпоставка? Како неко може знати шта се крије иза Великог праска? А нешто је сасвим друго питање када је Бог створио творевину, јер то је могло бити пре Великог праска, односно пре ,,пада''. Тада је могао постојати период када је био рајски живот, период када је било рајско постојање, које је сада нама неприступно јер смо отпали.

[grigorije22]

Superbugs not super after all

by Carl Wieland

After over 12 years as a medical practitioner, I suddenly found myself an avid consumer, rather than a provider, of medical care. Involved in a serious road accident in 1986, I spent many months in hospital, including weeks in an intensive care unit.

While in intensive care, I became infected with one of the varieties of so-called ‘supergerms’, which are the scourge of modern hospitals. These are strains of bacteria which are resistant to almost every (and in some cases every) type of antibiotic known to man.

Several others in the same unit with me died as a result of infection by the same bacterial strain. The germs overwhelmed their immune systems and invaded their bloodstream, untouched by the most expensive and sophisticated antibiotics available.

This ‘supergerm’ problem1 is an increasingly serious concern in Western countries. It strikes precisely those hospitals which are more ‘high-tech’, and handle more serious illnesses. Applying more disinfectant is not the answer; some strains of germs have actually been found thriving in bottles of hospital disinfectant! The more antibacterial chemical ‘weapons’ are being used, the more bacteria are becoming resistant to them.

The reality of increasing bacterial resistance seems at first to be an obvious example of onwards and upwards evolution. But the facts, when carefully examined, show otherwise.

Natural selection, but not evolution

Evolution is basically the belief that everything has made itself—that natural processes (over millions of years, without miraculous, divine input of intelligence) have created an increasingly complex array of creatures. According to evolution, there was once a time when none of the creatures in the world had lungs. This means that there was no genetic information (the ‘blueprint’ for living things, carried on the molecule DNA) for lungs—anywhere. Then, at a later time, ‘lung information’ arose and was added to the world, but no ‘feather information’ as yet—feathers evolved later.

In other words, for every feature which arises by evolution, there would need to be new genetic information added to the total information in the biosphere (i.e., all the information in all creatures on earth). Some features could be lost subsequently, of course, so there will not always be a gain, but if microbes turned into magpies, maple trees and musicians, there must have been a massive net increase in information. This is not just any jumble of chemical sequences, but meaningful information, since it codes for complex structures which have purposeful functions.

So if new information, new functional complexity, can be shown to be arising by itself where previously there was none, this would give some credibility to the leteti of molecules-to-man evolution, although it would not strictly prove that it had occurred. However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show ‘evolution happening’. Let’s look at what is known about how the ‘superbugs’ became resistant, and ask—did any new structures or functions arise in the process (which is another way of asking whether there was any evidence of evolution)?

There are a number of different ways in which germs can become resistant to these poisons. A ‘superbug’ is, by definition, resistant to many different antibiotics. It may have become resistant to antibiotic A in one way, to antibiotic B in a completely different way, and to antibiotic C in another way again. So if we look at all the known ways of resistance arising in a population of germs, we will see if any of them are uphill, information-adding processes.

1. Some germs already had the resistance.

If out of a million bacteria, five already have a feature which makes them resistant (however that arose) to, say, penicillin, then soaking them in penicillin will kill all of them except for the five. Now the body’s natural defences will often ‘mop up’ such a small population before it can multiply and cause harm, so resistance will not become a problem. However, if that doesn’t happen, then those five germs can multiply, and their offspring will obviously also be resistant. So within a short time, there will be millions of germs resistant to penicillin. Notice that:

(i) This is why multiple resistance to major antibiotics is more common in hospitals which treat more serious conditions—these are the hospitals which will frequently be using the sophisticated, expensive ‘heavy artillery’ antibiotics, so this sort of ‘natural selection’ will happen more often.

(ii) In this kind of instance, the information to resist the antibiotic was already there in the bacterial population—it did not arise by itself, or in response to the antibiotic. That some germs were already resistant to man-made antibiotics before these were invented is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples from villages where modern antibiotics had never been used show that some of the germs are already resistant to drugs like methicillin which have never existed in nature. Bacteria revived from the frozen intestines of explorers who died in polar expeditions carried resistance to several modern antibiotics, which had not been invented when the explorers died.2

2. Some germs directly transfer their resistance to others.

In an amazing process, the closest thing to sex in bacteria, one germ inserts a tiny tube into another, and a little loop of DNA called a ‘plasmid’ transfers from one to another. This sort of gene transfer, which can obviously pass on information for resistance to a drug, can even happen between different species of bacteria.

Notice, again, that the information for the resistance must already exist in nature before it can be passed on. There is no evidence of anything totally new arising which was not there before. This is information transfer, not information creation.

So far, we have dealt with situations in which resistance was obviously already there. Evolutionists would claim, of course, that such resistance evolved originally in the (unobservable) past. However, if observed changes in the present do not show us new information, what support is there for the that such information arose in the past? The mechanism that is put forward for this past evolution is invariably mutation—a copying mistake, an accidental change in the DNA code passed on to the offspring. So that brings us to the final way in which bacteria can become resistant.

3. Some germs become resistant through mutation.

Interestingly, where this happens, there is no clearcut evidence of information arising. All such mutations appear to be losses of information, degenerative changes. For example, loss of a control gene may enhance resistance to penicillin.3

Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner.

However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.4 Once again, we see that information has been lost/corrupted, not gained.

Superwimps

It is precisely because the mutations which give rise to resistance are in some form or another defects, that so-called supergerms are not really ‘super’ at all—they are actually rather ‘wimpy’ compared to their close cousins. When I was finally discharged from hospital, I still had a strain of supergerm colonizing my body. Nothing had been able to get rid of it, after months in hospital. However, I was told that all I had to do on going home was to ‘get outdoors a lot, occasionally even roll in the dirt, and wait.’ In less than two weeks of this advice, the supergerms were gone. Why? The reason is that supergerms are actually defective in other ways, as explained. Therefore, when they are forced to compete with the ordinary bacteria which normally thrive on our skin, they do not have a chance. They thrive in hospital because all the antibiotics and antiseptics being used there keep wiping out the ordinary bacteria which would normally outcompete, wipe out and otherwise keep in check these ‘superwimps’.5

If they are ‘weaker’, then why do they cause so much death and misery in hospitals? These bacteria are not more aggressive than their colleagues, it is only that doctors have less power to stop them. Also, those environments which will tend to ‘select’ such resistant germs, like intensive care units, are precisely the places where there will be critically injured people, physically weakened and often with open wounds.

This is why more than one microbiologist concerned about these super-infections has mused (only partly tongue in cheek) that the best thing to happen in major hospitals might be to dump truckloads of germ-laden dirt into the corridors, rather than keep on applying more and more chemicals in a never-ending ‘arms race’ against the bacteria. In other words, stop using the antibiotics (which of course is hardly feasible), and all this ‘evolution’ will reverse itself, as the bacterial populations shift back again to favour the more hardy, less resistant varieties.

Summary and Conclusion

1. ‘Supergerms’ are actually not ‘super’ at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special conditions in hospitals.

2. There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that ‘imported’ from other bacteria).

3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, ‘uphill’ change.

4. ‘Supergerms’ give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years.

Postscript

Death, suffering and disease (including infection) are part of the curse which came upon a once-perfect world through the rebellion of our original ancestor, Adam, against his Maker.

Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilised in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.

The famous French biologist Pièrre Grassé, who held the chair of evolution at the Sorbonne for many years, admitted that mutations in bacteria simply showed shifts back and forth around a mean, but no net effect. Overall, he said, ‘mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.’6

When next you read about ‘supergerms’, remember that everything known about them is consistent with the Genesis creation of an originally good, complex world ruined by sin.

Epilogue

   

[Милан Меденица :)]

Ниси био довољно концизан а нисам ни видео где спомињеш ,,интервал времена''.

Све у свему, чак и тај интервал времена јесте уствари релативна категорија из перспективе некога који има моћ над временом. А тај неко је сâм Бог. Знаш како апостол Петар каже: ,,Али ово једно да вам не буде непознато, љубазни, да је један дан пред Господом као хиљаду година, и хиљаду година као један дан'' (2Пет.3,8).

Зашто не би било могуће да Бог узме човека и проведе га кроз релативност времена у односу на осталу творевину? На пример, да узме мене и да за то време не доживим ништа, односно да ми искуство времена буде само један тренутак, али када ме буде вратио на Земљу, да онда видим тебе Медо, остарелог за рецимо 30 година.

Управо је то могућност искуства Адама и Еве у односу на целокупну творевину. Они су могли да доживе ,,пад'', као што се каже ,,изгнање'', у тренутку, без трајања времена. А остала творевина - доживљујући ,,пад'' - могла је проћи кроз читаву еволуцију са почетком кроз Велики прасак.

Може ли сада неко да каже зашто ово није могућа претпоставка? Како неко може знати шта се крије иза Великог праска? А нешто је сасвим друго питање када је Бог створио творевину, јер то је могло бити пре Великог праска, односно пре ,,пада''. Тада је могао постојати период када је био рајски живот, период када је било рајско постојање, које је сада нама неприступно јер смо отпали.

мислиш ИСПРЕД Великог Праска ... а још мање капирам што га узимаш као постулат и почекат Пада 

био сам врло прецизан - ПОСЛЕ Пада, не пре. мислим да теолошки и научно мења целу поставку размишљања ... а видим да то нико од еволуциониста ни креациониста није ни узео у обзир.

поставка времена у том твом случају виси на стакленим ногама и то језиво кртим. кад већ помињемо тај твој хипослучај, а време је језиво уско везано са простором у три димензије битисања: ГДЕ би Адам био све то време тренутка а периода праскања остале творевине?

иначе, неприступно нам је јер морамо да умремо, а без Христа не можемо да васкрснемо. смрт је пролаз, сам Бог је тај услов испунио. Он је тај који држи даљинац, не ми.

да смо врло раскалашни у размишљању, могли бисмо да кажемо да је Спаситељ (или Адам, ако га узмемо као првоствореног, уместо прворођеног) својеврсни астронаут који је прошао кроз црну рупу ... ал ајд нећемо да збуњујемо, поготово због те(р)ориста завера и присталица ванземаљаца  girl_jumping

[Grizzly Adams]

Веома занимљив оглас за посао - Оксфорд тражи математичаре:

The College intends to appoint two two-year Fixed-term Research Associates to work in its Research Centre. The college will host a further two years of the project and provide matching funding, if external funding can be obtained. The successful applicants will work with Professors Alan Grafen and Charles Batty on an abstract mathematical project that underpins and develops modern Darwinian theory....

The postholders will be involved in linking the mathematics of motion with the mathematics of optimisation at an abstract level. The tools will include measure theory and Markov processes over compact Hausdorff spaces. The goals of the project are to unify, formalise and extend existing results into a rigorous and general statement about the connections between natural selection, on the one hand, and optimality in the design of organisms, including a precise definition of ‘optimal’, on the other....

The rest of this section gives some background as a shorter alternative to reading the four papers given above. The concept of fitness optimization is routinely used by field biologists, and first-year biology undergraduates are frequently taught that natural selection leads to organisms that maximize their fitness. Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) promoted a conceptual integration of modern evolutionary theory in which genes are viewed as optimising agents, which is extremely influential and widespread today and encompasses inclusive fitness theory and evolutionarily stable strategies as well as general optimality ideas. However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. One underlying cause is that the link between natural selection and fitness optimization is much more sophisticated than the usual optimization principles associated with dynamical systems, namely Lyapunov functions and gradient functions....

The aim is to formalize relevant links between the mathematics of motion (representing the known process of gene frequency change as the dominant mechanism of evolution) and the mathematics of optimization, in a rigorous way. Generality is important, as a major aim is to find mathematical arguments that match Darwin’s verbal arguments in the Origin of Species, as well as Dawkins’s verbal arguments in the Selfish Gene and later works. This requires, for example, the use of measure theory to represent populations and to represent uncertainty. The aim is to model fully the core of the underlying verbal arguments, so that we can be confident there is ‘nothing left in them’. ...

Objectives

1. To construct a mathematical framework, with appropriate theorems, to represent fully the core argument in Darwin’s Origin of Species, namely that the purely mechanical processes of inheritance and reproduction can give rise through natural selection to the appearance of design. ...

Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton's mechanics and Einstein's theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. Of course, there are many mathematical models that show natural selection at work, but they are all examples. None claims to capture Darwin's central argument in its entirety. In its grandest conception, this project aims to do just that, and even to include all the valid additions to the theory, namely sexual selection, the merging of Darwinism and Mendelism, inclusive fitness and evolutionary game theory. ...

A further advantage [of the proposed work] is that by setting up a formal version of Darwin’s argument, it will raise the bar for those who claim to have their own understanding of Darwin: in the first place, it will need to be checked against the formal version; if it fails that test, it will still of course be possible to argue that the current formal version is incomplete or erroneous; but this will be a technical exercise that requires real intellectual work to be persuasive, for which words alone will not suffice. …

This project is in many ways a mathematical, formal version of the argument of The Selfish Gene. There, Dawkins articulates in words a unifying structure for all the central adaptive theories used by evolutionary biologists, and grounds that unifying structure in a fully logical framework. A mathematical version will provide more precision, and answer a class of objections. ...

The idea that organisms maximise their fitness as a result of natural selection is extremely important in many areas of biology. The explanatory apparatus of most whole organism, behavioural ecology, work would make no sense without it. However, the logical basis for the idea is in considerable doubt. The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised. …

There has been essentially no formal consideration of the kind of optimisation that emerges so naturally from verbal arguments such as those of Darwin (1859) and Dawkins (1976). ...

The concept of fitness optimization is routinely used by field biologists, and first-year biology undergraduates are frequently taught that natural selection leads to organisms that maximize their fitness. Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) promoted a conceptual integration of modern evolutionary theory in which genes are viewed as optimising agents, which is extremely influential and widespread today and encompasses inclusive fitness theory and evolutionarily stable strategies as well as general optimality ideas. However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. …

Generality is important, as a major aim [of the proposed work] is to find mathematical arguments that match Darwin’s verbal arguments in the Origin of Species, as well as Dawkins’s verbal arguments in the Selfish Gene and later works. …

Thus this highly abstract mathematical project will have significant implications at many different levels in biology. It will also be of interest to historians of science, as it will claim to show the underlying logic of Darwin’s great insight and of Dawkins’ conceptual unification.

http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3498/RA%20in%20Mathematics_FPs.pdf.download

Више пута сам у дискусијама на тему поменуо да овако нешто треба да се уради, мора да неко са Оксфорда чита наше форуме...

[Juan Valdez]

Mа да, Alan Grafen има идентичне мотиве и методолигују као Звонко и остали идијевци...  ekstra

У питању је еволцуциони биолог који је заједно с Докинсом радио на ”How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think”. Написао је поглавље ”The Intellectual Contribution of The Selfish Gene to Evolutionary Theory”. Ево листе његових радова, као и линк ка програму за конструисање филогенетског стабла (вероватно је и ту читао Звонкове идеје на форуму) и линк ка материјалима за предавања, чисто да се види да размишља исто као Звонко.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/index.html

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/phylo/index.html

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/LectPres/index.html

Као што рекох, еволуционисти све раде, а онда идијевци из фотеље паметују, не схватајући уопште да се било какав прогрес, укључујући чак и потенцијално обарање дела или целе ТЕ, дешава упрокос њима. Они сами немају никакву математичку заснованост сржи сопствене теорије (несводљива комплексност и некаква специјална врста информација која нема никакву заснованост у досадашњим теоријама информација). Математичка теорија на којој Алан и екипа раде полази од ТЕ.

[Grizzly Adams]

Ти брате више ни шалу не разумеш...

Озбиљно - могу само да подсетим да сам неколико пута поменуо да такво математичка основа за ТЕ не постоји и да би било добро да се на томе ради, а ви сте ми скресали како се хиљаде математичара баве тиме. Ево људи лепо кажу да то до сада нико није направио и да тек треба да се ради.

Осим тога, исто сам пар пута поменуо да многи математичари сумњају да је такав процес могућ, па сте ме исмејавали. Ево из претходног текста:

... the logical basis for the idea is in considerable doubt. The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised. …

... mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind.

То су елементарне чињенице, али ви сте постали толико острашћени да више не вреди разговарати. Од ТЕ сте направили идолопоклонство. Прави Талибани.

[Juan Valdez]

Не, него браним научни метод. Било какав рад који је научно утемељен, а говори против теорије еволуције не бих никада напао и то то знаш врло добро. А против ИДеолога ћу се борити док имам снаге, па био сто пута талибан, јер демагогија и наука везе с везом немају. Ево, такви су способни да на једној страни вичу како критика теорије еволуције није дозвољена у мејнстрим науци и да се свака мисао на критику прогони, а на другој страни да поставе овај линк уз овакве кометаре, ни мање ни више, него из бастиона најрадикалнијих апологета еволуције на земаљској кугли.  0442_feel

[Juan Valdez]

Срећом, рад је достпуан бесплатно (срам их било), па заинтеросовани могу да виде директно на извору о чему се заправо ради.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/fdpmidterm.pdf

У шта су матетматичари заиста сумњали и какве везе то (не)има са Звонковим давним (”исмејаним”) аргументима да је математичарима јасно да ТЕ има проблем са информацијама, може се видети и у овом раду:

http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No4/421.pdf

У оба рада је велики број референци за оне које стварно занима реално тренутно стање у овом делу науке, а не што је баби мило, то јој се и снило.

[Grizzly Adams]

Шта ли ти дуваш... оћу и ја мало...

Оглас је за пројекат који још није почео. Тек треба да приме људе, па да напишу радове.

[Juan Valdez]

Оглас је за пројекат који још није почео. Тек треба да приме људе, па да напишу радове.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/fdpmidterm.pdf

The formal Darwinism project: a mid-term report

Most of the elements required for a general theory have now been implemented, but not together in the same framework, and ‘general time’ remains to be developed and integrated with the other elements to produce a final unified theory of neo-Darwinian natural selection.

Дакле, оглас је за одрађивање овог дела посла. То не значи да ништа не постоји и да се математичари противе теорији еволуције. Врло је прецизно речено где је заиста проблем, а то је да се популациони генетичари (ту спадају и ти математичари) генерално нису слагали са некаквим идејама бихевиоралних еколога. Свакако не значи да су ти популациони генетичари-математичари против теорије природне селекције, а нарочито не у дизајнерском смислу. Уосталом, ту су линкови, па нек читају људи.

[Grizzly Adams]

Pitanje koje u ovakvim slucajevima uvek postavljam i gle cuda odgovora nigde na vidiku je

sta ce spreciti te mehanizme koji izazivaju mikro i midi promene da na vecoj vremenskoj skali

izazovu makro promene? Mislim koja je to magicna barijera koja sprecava takvu akumulaciju adaptacija?

Bog. bighugbighug

Barem sam taj odgovor dobio od jednog kreacioniste.

A jesi li pitao ZvonkaM? bighugbighug dada

Нисам ја, часна реч... dada

[Grizzly Adams]

Ивице,

Ај` ће видимо, нека мајстори заврше пос`о.

[Juan Valdez]

Ивице,

Ај` ће видимо, нека мајстори заврше пос`о.

Па ја то све време и говорим...

[Аурор]

Озбиљно - могу само да подсетим да сам неколико пута поменуо да такво математичка основа за ТЕ не постоји и да би било добро да се на томе ради, а ви сте ми скресали како се хиљаде математичара баве тиме.

A koji deo priče se ne uklapa u matematičke okvire ?

Осим тога, исто сам пар пута поменуо да многи математичари сумњају да је такав процес могућ, па сте ме исмејавали.

All due respect, to nije matematički problem nego biološki.

Ево из претходног текста:

... the logical basis for the facenew22222222 is in considerable doubt. The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised. …

... mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind.

Dobro, to su rečenice izolovane iz konteksta u kom se pominje nekakva "fitness optimization", pa ako bi nam objasnio suštinu tog fenomena, mogli bismo da odgovorimo. Ja prvi put čujem za tako nešto.