Author Topic: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?  (Read 46452 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Loni

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.716
  • Mejnstrim Paša
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #150 on: 23-11-2012, 12:19:57 »
Dobronamerni ljudi na fejsbuku misle na lonija (via Hokaj Pirs):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action.html


Drugim rečima, umesto što smo se mučili i učili u školi, bilo bi efektnije da smo jednostavno pojeli profesore.
S ćelijom, pojedeš i znanje i sve profine pozitivne osobine.  :roll:

LM
Mislim da je stav da su ljudi čisto nekakvi paraziti, slučajno nastali na nekoj nevažnoj planeti, pao u vodu, onog momenta kad se otkrilo da našim posmatranjem menjamo trase atoma.
U kvantnoj fizici svaki atom može da bude na bilo kom mestu uz izuzetak atoma koji posmatramo.
Našim posmatranjem mi utičemo na njegovu lokaciju.

To je dokaz koliko je inteligentni posmatrač, odnosno život ovakvog gabarita, moćan faktor.

Živa bića zapravo non stop emituju kvatnu energiju koja je nemerljiva našim instrumentima, ali postoji.
Kud ćete veći dokaz za to od ljubavi. Kad uđeš u neku prostoriju možeš da osetiš ko te koliko voli, ko ne voli, a ne znaš kako.
Postoji i fenomen da dve komšinice gaje isti cvet u saksiji. Zalivaju ga uvek u isto vreme. Ipak više će rasti cvet domaćice koja ga više voli.
Isto je sa decom, sa partnerima i prijateljima. Ukoliko ne ulažeš ljubav, sve počinje da puca.

Mora biti da je protok i emocija u nekom mikro mikro mikro svetu takođe merljiv. 
 

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #151 on: 23-11-2012, 12:37:47 »
Ajkule su se prilagodile koliko im treba.

The earliest known sharks date from more than 420 million years ago

Dinosaur - They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago

Crocodile - They first appeared during the Eocene epoch, about 55 million years ago

Human - They originated in Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago



Krokodili su stariji od dinosaura. Oni su se hranili njima.

Crocs Eating Dinos

Ne mogu da se setim naziva te emisije, ali tip koji proučava ove pra-krokodile, odlazi u Australiju kod biologa-krokodilaša i zajedno seciraju jednog nesrećnog australijskog kroka. Ustanove da krokodil ima takvo srce, kojim može da usmerava krv u deo tela po želji. Dakle, kad hibernira, samo minimalnu količinu krvi šalje u mozak, kad onako nepokretan stoji u reci i čeka da nešto naleti, krv ide samo u čula, i tako dalje. S takvim sistemom, njemu nije ni potrebno da bude toplokrvan. Zanimljiva emisija...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 48.375
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #152 on: 24-11-2012, 09:04:05 »
E, sad:
 
Scientists Reveal Single Gene Is the Difference Between Humans and Apes
 
Quote

What makes us human? Some say that it is the development of language, though others argue that animals have language as well. Some say that it is our ability to use tools, though many animals are able to use rocks and other objects as primitive tools. Some say that it is our ability to see death coming.

Now, researchers believe that they have found the definitive difference between humans and other primates, and they think that the difference all comes down to a single gene.
Researchers from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland attribute the split of humanity from apes to the gene miR-941. They say that the gene played an integral role in human development and contributed to humans' ability to use tools and learn languages.
Most of the time, when one species diverges from another, that difference occurs because of gene mutations, duplications, or deletions. However, this gene is believed to have emerged, fully functional, from "junk DNA" in a breathtakingly short amount of evolutionary time.
Humans share 96 percent of their genes with other primates. Of the 4 percent that humans alone have, a significant portion of it has been widely labeled "junk DNA". Researchers have since that "junk DNA" is functional, even though it does not code. This is the first time that a gene that humans and other primates do not share has been shown to actually have a specific function within the body.
Researchers came to this conclusion after comparing the human genome to 11 other species of mammals, including gorillas, chimpanzees, mice, and rats. These comparisons were made so that the geneticists could find the difference between them.
In a study published in Nature Communications, researchers say that the gene emerged sometime between six and one million years ago.
The gene is highly active in the regions of the brain that control language learning and decision making, indicating that it may play a significant role in the higher brain functions that make humans, well, human.

 

Barbarin

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.647
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #153 on: 24-11-2012, 11:52:48 »
Razlika između psa i vuka je u jednom postotku 1%. A vuk se ne može pripitomiti.
Jeremy Clarkson:
"After an overnight flight back to London, I find myself wondering once again if babies should travel with the baggage"

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #154 on: 24-11-2012, 11:59:49 »
Ima ona basna o psu i vuku...
Pitom znači poslušan.

Barbarin

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.647
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #155 on: 24-11-2012, 12:08:11 »
Ne znam je  :(

Al u suštini i više nego poslušan. Probavali su da pripitome vuka i glavna stvar koju su primetili je da vuk uopšte ne obraća pažnju na to šta čovek radi, govori, kako se ponaša, ima neki svoj svet i čovek nije u njemu. Ne gleda čak ni u oči za razliku od psa.
Jeremy Clarkson:
"After an overnight flight back to London, I find myself wondering once again if babies should travel with the baggage"

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #156 on: 24-11-2012, 12:13:48 »
Razgovaraju vuk i pas. Pas se hvali kako ima redovno obed, kućicu u kojoj spava, vode ga kod veterinara i tako to.
A vuk gleda, gleda, pa ga pita: A šta ti je to oko vrata?
Ogrlica, kaže pas.
A čemu ona služi?
Pa, na nju zakače lanac.
Aha... kaže vuk, okrene se i ode.


Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #157 on: 24-11-2012, 12:15:53 »
Kažu da vuk reaguje na jaku ličnost.
Kod pasa je razvijeno samosažaljenje. Mene to najviše nervira kod njih.
Izgleda da kod vukova emocionalno uslovljavanje ne funkcioniše. U tome je fora.

Barbarin

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.647
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #158 on: 24-11-2012, 12:33:39 »
Jasna je basna, al u današnje vreme pas mora da ima ogrlicu, ja kad odem na salaš sa mojima nemaju ništa oko vrata, u gradu naravno da su i na povodcu, al ne zato što se bojim da bi pobegli, jer ne bi, nego zato što ima previše ljudi, kola, lutalica...

Pogledaj ako te ne mrzi dokumentarac Nova Dogs Decoded, ima u njemu svega. A ja sam emotivno vezan za psa pa ne mogu objektivno da sagledam situaciju.
Jeremy Clarkson:
"After an overnight flight back to London, I find myself wondering once again if babies should travel with the baggage"

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.634
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #159 on: 27-11-2012, 13:40:50 »
Profesor Gerald Crabtree sa Stanford univerziteta je objavio rad u kome dokazuje da je ljudska inteligencija dostigla vrhunac pre nekoliko milenijuma i da od tada opada!!!

 
  Our Fragile Intellect
 
Ne kačim tekst sam jer je u PDFu i loše se prelomi.

pa to je otprilike rekao Tesla prije sto godina, samo što ljudi i dalje ne vjeruju da drugi zakon termodinamike pobija teoriju evolucije.


Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.028
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #160 on: 05-12-2012, 20:37:28 »
Osvrt na argumente kreacionista sa io9, http://io9.com/5965884/draft-10-claims-made-by-creationists-to-counter-scientific-theories

Bata da overi šestu stavku.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #161 on: 07-12-2012, 03:39:05 »

Brock Landers

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 16.190
    • Radioaktivna aleja
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #162 on: 07-12-2012, 04:43:11 »
Људи, ви стварно вјерујете у ту еволуцију? Ас ин - ФОР РЕАЛ????

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #163 on: 07-12-2012, 05:05:46 »
Људи, ви стварно вјерујете у ту еволуцију? Ас ин - ФОР РЕАЛ????

u redu je, harv.
na tvom mestu niko u evoluciju ne bi mogao da veruje!

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.137
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #164 on: 07-12-2012, 06:25:05 »
inače, suvišno je reći da ja verujem u evoluciju.
ovakvu:


tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.634
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #165 on: 07-12-2012, 12:58:56 »
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.028
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #166 on: 07-12-2012, 14:16:38 »
Ne sviđa mi se kako sve ove slike zauzimaju više mesta od linka što ga postavih, te stoga evo teksta s tog linka, Meho style:

The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories        One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is reconcile the belief in a 6,000 year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly different conclusion — namely a universe that's 13.5 billion years old and an Earth that formed 4.5 billion years ago. So, given these astoundingly dramatic discrepancies, biblical literalists and 'young Earth creationists' have had no choice but to get pretty darned imaginative when brushing science aside. Here are 10 arguments creationists have made to counter scientific theories.

 1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

Quite obviously, creationists aren't able to gloss over the fact that dinosaurs existed. They are clearly a part of the fossil record. But in accordance with the the Bible, creationists insist that they lived contemporaneously to humans. And in fact, they say this explains why dragons play a prominent role in our mythological record. Moreover, creationists claim that human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur tracks at Paluxy, that a petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks, and that some sandal footprints have been found alongside trilobites. Other theories suggest that the Great Flood shook up and redeposited the fossil record so that it appears that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived. Real evidence and proper interpretation of the fossil record, however, supports the idea that humans first emerged about 200,000 years ago — long after the demise of dinosaurs who went extinct 65 million years ago.

2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved
 This is what biochemist Michael Behe refers to as irreducible complexity. He and other creationists complain that a complex biological system, what is comprised of many interacting parts, would cease to function properly in the event of any alteration. Proponents of intelligent design use this argument to claim that anything less than the complete form of a fully functional biological system (or organ) would not work at all — what would be catastrophically detrimental to an organism. In other words, all mutations have to be bad. The only way for an organism to evolve, the ID defenders say, is for God to guide the process every step of the way. This is silly, of course — organisms are not that fragile. And in fact, evolvability is an indelible aspect to life.

3. We can see light from distant galaxies because the speed of light is not constant


When we look up at the sky at night, we're actually looking back in time. Given the vastness of the universe, it can take upwards of millions and even billions of years for the light from the most distant celestial objects to reach us. Creationists have a rather convenient explanation for this problem: The universal constants, including the speed of light, are not constant at all. It's quite possible, they surmise, that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past, allowing it to reach the Earth in time for Adam to see it. Others speculate that the Big Bang theory is simply wrong, and that a new ‘creationist cosmology' is required to reconcile the apparent anomaly in our observations. As the Creation Answers Handbook claims:
 
The basic biblical framework, because it comes from the Creator, is nonnegotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).
 
Failing this, creationists can always default to the most convenient of explanations: God simply created the light ‘on it's way,' so that observers on Earth could see the stars immediately without having to wait. Mmmm, handwaving....

4. All hominid fossils are either fully human or fully ape


Given that Scripture doesn't provision for evolution, the discovery of ancient human relatives like Australopithecines and Neanderthals is deeply problematic. To explain this away, creationists argue that anthropologists are misreading the fossil record and inaccurately conflating Homo sapiens with other ape species. When it comes to Neanderthals, they say there was no such thing — that these are human remains and not some distant relative. And to explain the morphological differences, creationists simply argue that these were disfigured humans, or people suffering from rickets or arthritis.

5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust


According to Abraham Loeb, an astrophysicist from Harvard whose work gets cherry picked by creationists, "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." Creationists, like Jonathan Sarfat, have used the arguments of Loeb and others to make their case against the ‘nebular hypothesis' — the theory that stars and planets formed over the course of billions of years as gravity brought gasses and particles together to create large masses. It's impossible, they say, for stars to form from nebulas. They claim that terrestrial planets could never congeal from "blobs" of gas and dust, as other objects would constantly provide resistance and disruption. Creationists also argue that the temperature of nebulas following the Big Bang would have been far too hot to facilitate contraction, and that the particles would have pushed away from each other. Other inconsistencies include the sun's axial tilt and the presence of inexplicable gas giants. As Sarfat notes, the best explanation comes from the Bible, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host." In other words, when in doubt, attribute any kind of natural phenomenon to God. Gotcha.

6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution

The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe and all its systems are progressively moving towards disorder, or entropy. Evolution, on the other hand, implies the improvement of a species — what creationists say is a gross violation of the Second Law. This contradiction, say the creationists, implies that ‘evolutionists' are fundamentally wrong in their assumptions — that changes to systems should be regressive and not progressive. What they fail to understand, however, is that the 2LT should only be applied to the universe as a whole, or a closed energy system — which the Earth is most certainly not. But moreover, evolution does not always lead to improvement or increased complexity. Organisms are either well adapted or poorly suited to their environments at any given point in time. And in fact, some species evolve towards too much complexity (i.e. over-specialization) and detrimental adaptations that can lead to outright extinction. Evolution is by no means a process of improvement; it's merely an autonomous system that's driven by variation and selection.

7. The Flood caused the ice age


Like the presence of dinosaurs, the ice age is another conundrum that demands a response — a glacial period that occurred during the last years of the Pleistocene, approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Actually, this is an easy one, say the creationists. According to Genesis, most of the Flood water came from underground — what resulted in warmer than average oceans and a significant increase in global snowfall. This gave rise to the ice sheets and the pluvial periods. In addition, large amounts of volcanic dust in the atmosphere blocked crucial sunlight, which caused cooler summers. Moreover, the ice age is a geological phenomenon that can also explain why there's no trace of the Great Flood in the sedimentary record. And on a related note, some creationists contend that the sedimentary layers were caused by the tremendous weight of the flood waters above the ground.

8. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work

For years, scientists have used radiocarbon dating to get a sense of how old ancient objects really are. They're able to do this by exploiting the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials. To sweep this inconvenient truth aside, some creationists claim that radioisotope decay rates aren't constant — and that all processes in nature vary according to different factors. Others argue that carbon dating gives inaccurate results, pointing to changing ratios of 14C in the atmosphere and varying amounts of cosmic rays reaching the Earth — what would affect the amount and ratios of 14C produced. Additionally, some claim that the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance; the water, they argue, buried huge amounts of carbon (which became coal, oil, etc.) lowering the total 12C in the biosphere. Read this to see why they're wrong.

9. DNA is God's signature on all living things


Some creationists argue that DNA, by virtue of the fact that it contains stored information that can be read by humans, must be the result of intelligence. The information within DNA — what facilitates the assembling of proteins and enzymes — wouldn't be coherent if someone, namely God, wasn't scripting it. Creationists clearly need to ramp-up on information theory if they ever hope to understand how complex systems actually work — and how the scientific endeavor is largely an effort to translate the mysteries of the universe into a language we can understand.

10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters


The Grand Canyon formed about 70 million years ago — at a time when the dinosaurs still ruled the Earth. This geological time scale is obviously a problem for creationists, who simply respond by suggesting that it was created in one fell swoop when the flood waters retreated (it's amazing how many things can be explained by the Great Flood). Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, it is a geologic impossibility. Moreover, it would have likely created a huge, straight, washed out chasm, and not the intricate and winding Grand Canyon we know today. And of course, creationists are loath to explain why there's only one Grand Canyon on Earth.


Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #168 on: 08-12-2012, 14:57:17 »
mac, mislim da je besmisleno da mi učitavaš teze nekih tupavih američkih kreacionista, mislim, nepobitna činjenica je da niko, apsolutno niko do sada nije razvio bilo kakvu ideju o svemiru bez ijednog božanskog atributa, ili ako ti smeta ''bog'' u čitavoj priči, atributa apsolutnog bića. Npr, atributi su sveznanje, svemoć, sveprisutnost, beskonačnost

neke religije prihvataje sve te atribute, a neke samo poneki. Npr, fizika kao religija prihvata beskonačnost i sveprisutnost materije (sem ako im crne rupe ne unište koncepciju, ali i dalje ostaje beskonačnost svemira), a to ne potpada pod ''understand''

a naravno da je lako onda iz takve slijepe mrlje pričati o evoluciji, iako prirodnjaci još ne znaju ni šta to znači reći da je svemir beskonačan. No svejedno, odoh da uživam u slikama pahulja, ljepše ih je gledati na ekranu nego uživo.


P.S. Evolucija je teorija a ne zakon, i do tada je smiješno pričati o ''understand''. Još nijedna kauzalna veza nije dokazana.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.634
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #169 on: 08-12-2012, 15:35:04 »
neke religije prihvataje sve te atribute, a neke samo poneki. Npr, fizika kao religija prihvata beskonačnost i sveprisutnost materije (sem ako im crne rupe ne unište koncepciju, ali i dalje ostaje beskonačnost svemira), a to ne potpada pod ''understand''

nisam siguran da fizika prihvata beskonačnost, obzirom da je to još uvek otvoreno pitanje (da li kosmos ima beskonačnu zapreminu, da li se prostire u nedogled i slično). sličnu diskusiju smo imali na nekom od drugih topika kada si rekao da je Plankova epoha jedan od "božanskih" atributa, obzirom da trenutno fizici nije baš jasno šta se dešavalo od momenta velikog praska do 10^−43 sekunde. ali ja ću postaviti opet isto pitanje: da li misliš da nešto što nauka ne može u ovom momentu da razume treba proglasiti "božijim" atributom? ako treba, gde je tu napredak?

edit: ispravio neke tipfelere
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #170 on: 08-12-2012, 16:50:26 »
pa sad, meni ništa ne znači što je to otvoreno pitanje, jer ako već jeste tako onda je i evolucija otvoreno pitanje pa ne može da se kaže ''I understand it is true'' nego se opet vraćamo na ''believe''.


i vjera da će čovjek sve uspjeti da objasni zvuči besmisleno u kontekstu beskonačnosti koja je čovjeku nedokučiva


jer to nije otvoreno pitanje već aporija


ako je svemir konačan, šta je iza granice?
ako je beskonačan, to je božanski atribut.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #171 on: 08-12-2012, 16:54:35 »
Hokins je to bolje objasnio, ali ko jebe Hokinsa?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #172 on: 08-12-2012, 17:04:57 »
I Spinoza je to bolje objasnio, ali ko jebe Spinozu?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #173 on: 08-12-2012, 17:06:34 »
I Platon je to bolje objasnio, ali...
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #174 on: 08-12-2012, 17:10:54 »
Božanski atributi koje čovek opaža na Bogu su prostornost i mišljenje. A beskonačni su modusi prvog reda.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.634
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #175 on: 08-12-2012, 17:11:35 »
pa sad, meni ništa ne znači što je to otvoreno pitanje, jer ako već jeste tako onda je i evolucija otvoreno pitanje pa ne može da se kaže ''I understand it is true'' nego se opet vraćamo na ''believe''.


i vjera da će čovjek sve uspjeti da objasni zvuči besmisleno u kontekstu beskonačnosti koja je čovjeku nedokučiva


jer to nije otvoreno pitanje već aporija


ako je svemir konačan, šta je iza granice?
ako je beskonačan, to je božanski atribut.

na šta misliš kada kažeš da je evolucija otvoreno pitanje?

evolucija nije pitanje vere kao što je postojanje boga pitanje vere, obzirom da postoje dokazi koji mehanizme evolucije čine jasnim, čak i na intuitivnom nivou.

to sa granicom svemira je prilično uprošćavanje, čini mi se. dvodimenzionalna površine neke sfere je konačna, ali ne znam da li se može pričati o nekim granicama. alternative je reći "ne znamo da li postoji granica, i ako postoji šta je iza nje, i ovde sečemo i kažemo - to je božansko. ok, to smo rešili, idemo dalje".
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #176 on: 08-12-2012, 17:17:52 »
Božanski atributi koje čovek opaža na Bogu su prostornost i mišljenje. A beskonačni su modusi prvog reda.


Kufer je to još bolje objasnio, a ko...?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #177 on: 08-12-2012, 17:19:30 »
Jebe ga TSA  8-)

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #178 on: 08-12-2012, 17:20:54 »
A ovako je to Hegel video


scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #179 on: 08-12-2012, 17:33:02 »
Jest' naglavce, a gde mu je dupe?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #180 on: 08-12-2012, 17:35:15 »
Iz dupeta mu nešto viri.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #181 on: 08-12-2012, 17:39:33 »
To su noge. Sneško nema dva dupeta.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #182 on: 08-12-2012, 18:30:31 »
šta vas dva spadala pokušavate... tek Platon i Spinoza nemaju veze sa evolucijom


tomat, evolucija nije dokazala ključnu stvar, da iz jedne vrste nastaje druga. A to da li postoje male mutacije uz pomoć kojih se ljudi prilagođavaju sredini nije dokaz za žestoko pretumbavanje DNK lanca od pimata do Homo sapiensa

dakle, neko je iz sličnosti primata i čovjeka izveo tezu da su četiri hromozoma primata pretvorena u dva kod čovjeka, nekim čudom su se spojila, a kako i zašto, to još niko nije ni objasnio ni dokazao.

sličnost pripada deskripciji, kauzalnost još niko nije dokazao

ako jeste, ja bih to volio da vidim


scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #183 on: 08-12-2012, 18:58:35 »
To o "žestokom pretumbavanju DNK lanca od primata do Homo sapiensa" je momenat gde se posvađaš sam sa sobom. Nema "žestokog" i nema "pretumbavanja". Razlika od 1,5% između šimpanze i čoveka bi za tehniku bila u "granicama dozvoljene greške". Dalje, evolucija nije napredak, ona je promena, događaj. Između događaja koji u rekombinaciji DNK dovedu do jako složenih ali izuzetno fragilnih organizama u sredini u kojoj nastaju i opstaju i događaja koji u toj istoj rekombinaciji dovedu do jako jednostavnih i izuzetno fragilnih organizama u sredini u kojoj nastaju i opstaju, jedina je razlika u brzini promene (neko bi rekao evolucije). Složeni organizmi su stoga skloni ekstinkciji, a jednostavni organizmi su isto tako skloni ekstinkciji, ali, odnosno ALI, složenoj organizaciji organizama treba mnogo promena da bi stvorila organizam koji može da opstane neko vreme, to znači i vremena, a jednostavnim organizmima je to frk i - gotovo. Promena, odnosno evolucija je toliko brza, da neke varijetete ni ne primetimo da su postojali. Dakle, pošto je evolucija promena, a ne napredak, ona nema nikakve veze sa entropijom. Onaj ko je nađe ima promaju u glavi.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.028
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #184 on: 08-12-2012, 18:59:54 »
Kakvo žestoko, u pitanju je par procenta razlike. Veća je razlika između prokariote i eukariote, nego između miša i slona.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #185 on: 08-12-2012, 19:05:09 »
''par procenata razlike'' je suštinska razlika. O čemu mi pričamo ovdje, nađite jednu uspješnu mutaciju koja je izmijenila nekoliko procenata DNK. Jedino poznato petljanje prirode sa hromozomima se zove Daunov sindrom.

Dakle, bio sam jasan, šimpanza ima 48 a čovjek 46 hromozoma, niko nikada nije dokazao da je majka neke životinje imala x hromozoma a dijete x+1 ili x-1 hromozom, a da to čeljade nije bilo sakato ili izmijenjeno tako da bude neprilagođeno okolini.

Je li ko dokazao da je moguće od dva hromozoma majke da nastane 1 homozom kod djeteta? Je li ili nije, prosto pitanje, prost odgovor.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #186 on: 08-12-2012, 19:17:54 »
Malo je problematično s tobom održati zrelu raspravu, jer kad si prebacio neozbiljnost gospodina Kufera i mene koji sam samo Akten Tašna u poređenju sa njim, ti si odmah prenebregao moj diskretni hint ka rešenju nastalih zavrzlama i posvetio se drndanju sa Macom, sa kojim uopšte nije teško drndati se.


Evo, odvojiću pasus da bi ti bilo jasnije.


Ja sam u svom postu nagovestio da između evolucije prostih i složenih organizama nema nikakve razlike, osim što kod prostih evolucija zna da bude munjevita. Stoga, ako imaš problem sa 1,5% DNK (nije dva procenta) razlike sa šimpanzama, posmatraj jednakovredan evolutivni proces kod prostih organizama. Ako ne veruješ meni, eno ti Lilit pa neka ti objasni da od siline evolucije uzročnika gripa ne mogu da postignu da naprave pravu vakcinu koja će se suprotstaviti vrsti koja će nas napasti sledeće jeseni, na primer.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #187 on: 08-12-2012, 20:22:33 »
I sama definicija vrste je toliko sumljiva da sigurno ne može da se dokaže da su svi pripadnici jedne vrste upravo to. Tvrdi se, naime, da je u pitanju (ista) vrsta ukoliko su potomci plodni...

To znači, iako su mule i mazge naprednije od konja i magaraca (jer su pokupile najbolje osobine od ovih), one nisu vrsta jer nisu sposobne za rasplođihanje  :roll:

Razlika između genoma čoveka i šimpanze, npr. od 1,5% i čoveka i miša od cirka 3%, samo znači da je veći deo genoma u vezi s nečim sasvim drugim a ne s morfologijom "vrste".


Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #188 on: 08-12-2012, 22:04:21 »
Mazga jeste vrsta, ne znam o čemu ti pričaš...

A veći dio genoma je u vezi sa teorijom evolucije, naravno, ono što nije u vezi sa teorijom jeste razlika. Darvin je izveo teoriju na osnovu sličnosti, a sličnost (analogija) je najprimitivniji naučni metod.

Kakvi bre virusi, abrakadabra i slične budalaštine, kod složenih organizama jedna članica u nizu od milion godina evolucije mora da ima x hromozoma a sljedeća članica mora da ima x-1

ne može biti jednostavnije od toga, nema kod čovjeka promjene po uzoru na grip nego je promjena TOTALNA. Svaka ćelija u tijelu mora da promijeni broj hromozoma, apsolutno svaka, izvoli pa dokaži to, a ne da porediš sa virusima koji su mikroorganizmi.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #189 on: 08-12-2012, 22:26:35 »
Meni je već pomalo neprijatno, možda bi bilo bolje da se vratim na ono - ko jebe Kufera :roll: . Mogao bih ja da objasnim, ali nisam siguran da li ti ne možeš ili nećeš da shvatiš. I igra oko čoveka startuje iz istog fazona kao i kod bakterija - čovek u jebenu ženu unosi samo jednu ćeliju koju zovemo spermić i ona sa ženskom jajnom ćelijom naredi samo jednu ćeliju koja o'ma' sadrži sve ono što sadrži i svaka ljudska ćelija kad čovek krene u školu. Dakle, šest milijardi proteinčića koji čine jednu dvostruku spiralu DNK u svih sedam milijardi ćelija koje kasnije sastave čoveka. Ako je prva ćelija nakon spajanja spermića i jajceta definitivno drugačija i uspe da opstane u okruženju materice i ostalog šta se tamo nalazi u svim fazama deljenja, definitivno imamo novu vrstu i samo joj treba još jedan takav defektni ili poboljšani, zbog naravno kasnijeg seksa (ko još veruje u rebarca?). Znaš već šta je starije - kokoška ili jaje? Da, da, prvo kokošije jaje nije snela kokoška.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #190 on: 08-12-2012, 23:23:58 »
e super, pošto si mi objasnio sve o pčelama i ptičicama, red je da mi objasniš i ovo


1. primati imaju 48 hromozoma
2. njihove polne ćelije 24
3. 24+24 je 48
4. ''spermić'' o ''jebena žena'' je 48
5. čovjek je 46


2 hromozoma negdje nestadoše, a možda i tebi dvije ganglije čim misliš da si nešto objasnio


lijepo pitam, i ako treba još jednom ću da pitam: kako dvije polne ćelije sa po 24 hromozoma stvaraju fetus sa 46 hromozoma


to bi, jelte, bio odgovor na pitanje ''kako?'' a zašto vidim da ni ne vrijedi da te pitam pošto ''SAMO joj treba još jedan takav defektni ili poboljšani'', pošto ispade još jedan mit o Adamu i Evi i vječnom incestu od početka čovječanstva


dakle, možda bi ti trebala još koja ganglija da objasniš koja to spoljašnja sredina je natjerala čovjeka da se uopšte mijenja, a kad se već promijenio iz nepoznatih razloga mijenja se masa primjeraka a ne jedan primjerak.


Thank you and good night.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #191 on: 08-12-2012, 23:30:39 »
Moguće je da ti imaš deficit ganglija.


Eh, da si studirao nešto što je pomaže razmišljanju...


Lako noć i tebi.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #192 on: 08-12-2012, 23:50:03 »
Niste videli ono gde prioni markiraju gene u DNK pa bakterije i bez mutacije DNK mutiraju?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #193 on: 08-12-2012, 23:55:47 »
Šta sad drndaš sa pionima, vidiš da čovek ima problem i sa lauferima. Uvek sam govorio da Guglanje ne oštri mozak već ga puni smećem.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #194 on: 09-12-2012, 00:11:45 »
Ima živih bića i sa preko 600 pari hromozoma. Otkud oni? Hahaha  :cry:
Pa broj hromozoma ti je kao, recimo, neko ima štampač, skener i faks, a neko ima combo, sve u jednom. Hromozomi su alatke u procesovanju podataka. Možda se oni menjaju povremeno a da se vrsta ne promeni.

Po mojoj hipotezi, većina čovečanstva je zapravo homo erectus, koji mimikuje homo sapiensa, a mutacija ovog potonjeg je duhovna - dakle, fiziološki neprepoznatljiva. Ima dosta homo erektusa i homo falusa oko nas, ne moram prstom da ukazujem na njih, koji su nesposobni za bilo kakvo promišljanje nego samo slede instrukcije (često haotične) koje primaju iz okoline.



Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #195 on: 09-12-2012, 00:34:43 »
ne znam šta ovaj priča o lauferima kad je odavno matiran...

ima malo viška hromozoma, al nema veze, evolucija je dokazana

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.028
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #196 on: 09-12-2012, 01:22:03 »
Prestani da se raspravljaš s nama i počni da tražiš informacije na internetu. Interesuje te kako primati 24 para a ljudi 23 para? Pun internet odgovora. Evo na Vikipediji:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2

Hromozom broj 2 u ljudi je nastao fuzijom hromozoma 2a i 2b kod primata. Telomeri koji se inače nalaze samo na krajevima hromozoma, jer samo tu imaju smisla, postoje i u sredini hromozoma 2, talno na mestu gde bi se i očekivao ako uzmemo da je hromozom nastao fuzijom.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.658
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #197 on: 09-12-2012, 02:00:30 »
Ma, Mac, on bi da nauči nešto, a da izgleda kao da zna. Učio bih ga ja, ali je, pored toga što ne zna, i nevaspitan. A kako da mu odavde izvučem uši?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #198 on: 09-12-2012, 04:00:04 »
ja sam dovoljno upoznat sa tim, i koliko puta trebam da ponovim da sličnost i kauzalnost nisu isto?

da ne pričamo da čak ni na tom linku ne piše da je dokazano već piše: Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

dakle, pun je internet koječega, ali bi neki trebali da nauče da čitaju

zna se dobro kako se to dokazuje, uzmete DNK od majmunčeta pa napravite ''fuziju'' njegova dva hromozoma pa da vidimo šta će iz epruvete da izađe

do tada, mumbo jambo! mumbo jumbo!

Mumbo Jumbo Boris Balkan Ninth Gate

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.028
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Darwin: Šta je frka u evoluciji?
« Reply #199 on: 09-12-2012, 11:32:33 »
A, pa ti troluješ. A ja mislio da te stvarno interesuje potraga za znanjem i ostalim koještarijama.

...

"Nije dokazano"... Darvinova teorija evolucije nije "dokazana", i zato se još zove teorija, ali nema sumnje da evolucija postoji. Darvinova teorija samo objašnjava mehanizam evolucije, to jest objašnjava kako to da imamo nove vrste.

Pitao si kako primati 24, a ljudi 23. Dobio si odgovor. Sad menjaš pitanje u zahtev, "dokažite mi taj odgovor". Hajde da ja pitam tebe, šta bi bilo alternativno objašnjenje? Telomeri u sredini lanca, jedan centromer viška, dva majmunska hromozoma u zbiru identična ovom našem. Kako ti to objašnjavaš?