пост для героически настроенных френдов :)
Первый раз наткнулась на антиэволюциониста в Interpals.
И тут мы схлестнулись :)
Мое мнение ни капельки не поколеблено. Не знаю, есть ли смысл в колебании мнения этого непонятного человека, но я пробую
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
3:51pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
It's...the island of Dr Moreau !
No, better not. It's New Caledonia, a French territory.
Genetics huh ? Maybe you can explain me why species would come from evolution, because I don't agree much with this theory.
You:
July 1, 2010
4:04pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Wow,that's really cool to live there. But not forever,as pasific ocean is rather unpredictable.
Well.. All of us are made of cells,we have common embryological and physiological features. Also fossils. Not only stones,bones and prints,but also genetical ones. You know,there are genes that work and do their job. But also there are pseudogenes,that used to work in our ancestors millions years ago. But not know.
If all was made at once,why do we posess lots of that sequenses in dna?
Also.. I've always been surprised why there are dna,rna and stuff. And how could they gather. But there were billions of years,and billions of billions of molecules. So sure,they've found each other.
What do you find wrong in evolution?
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
4:21pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
How do we know that they USED to work ? we were not there and the date is not written on it. And how do we know that we had ancestors that were not humans ?
Maybe we possess lots of that sequence for self-adaptation (like environmental adaptation of the genes) and not for specy to specy evolution.
How old is the first DNA cell ? very old I think, and it was already extremely complex.
So it means that it was created quickly.
I can present you my full argumentation as to why I don't believe Darwinian evolution is possible, but it's going to be very long, so maybe I'll do it later.
You:
July 1, 2010
4:52pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Because they are homological to ones in fruit flyes or other creatures,including germs. They don't change like humans because the enviroment can't be the same all the time.
I'm sure.that cells with dna were cells from the very begining. Good thing now as we can prove lots of things using computers.
I'm very interesting in your opinion as one who knows that evolution is a fact.
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
5:01pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
A lot of things are homological and might have the same origin, but it doesn't mean that they evolved from each others.
The ONLY proof to evolution is to watch a specie give birth to a new specie, but this proof we don't have it, or do we ?
You:
July 1, 2010
5:25pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
We have bacteria! And insects that are resistant to poisons. And fungi,that are able to live everywhere.
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
5:28pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
And what are those things ?
You:
July 1, 2010
10:38pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
You mean fungi? I mean molds and other stuff like that.
Most of them are really hard to kill/
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
11:56pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
No I mean why you list them ? do they prove something ?
You:
July 2, 2010
9:43pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Sorry for the delayed answer.
Yep, they prove that selection is capable to make new forms of species. And mutations play great role in it.
I still want to know your opinion as I can't see the very first place that makes you doubt in evolution.
similitudes:
July 2, 2010
9:53pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
New species ? But what is a specie ? I think it's not very clear.
Fungi makes fungi, where is the new specie ?
You:
July 2, 2010
10:02pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Actually, specie is a population of organisms that share one territory and unable to have living offspring.
So I see now, you object that there aren't any "middle" forms. But there are. For example, multicellular organisms. Long time noone could find any intermediate form untill one found Trichoplax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax
You want to see how a fly became an elefant, but you never will. First of all, they belong to different branches of animal evolution, and second - it would've made in mmillions of years.
*и тут мой косяк, потому что трихоплакс не совсем по адресу*
similitudes:
July 2, 2010
10:12pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
unable to have living offspring ? You meant ABLE
Trichoplax is middle form of what and what ?
How do we know it is middle form ?
You:
July 2, 2010
10:29pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Sorry, sure there is able.
Well, trichoplax is not the best example as there are some different theories about its phylogeny.
There are some points that there was not progress, but regression of functions. But that is still in the clue of evolution as progress doesn't equals evolution. It just means that some forms feel better then overs.
You wanna proved intermediate forms. Like one specie becomes another one. Well, I guess, that horse evolution is pretty clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
similitudes:
July 2, 2010
10:45pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Ok, the horse, there is too much to read so tell me, what proof are there ?
They found animals that look very similar, but what are the proof.
Correlations are not causalities.
Everybody sees that new models of cars have something to do with old models, but cars don't reproduce ! we make them !
You:
July 4, 2010
10:06pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
They've proved that their legs were changed according to the changes of the planet. Like it happened when forestless places appeared. It is obvious, an animal just would be caught if it had paws with 5 or 3 fingers!
Heh, your statement seems as a try to disprove genetics.. Do you know that people with sickle-cell anaemia are resistant to malaria? Thought this type of anaemia could cause death and gene causing it wouldn't be distributed among ill person's offsring as one simply die and won't have it. Anyway, they could have only one copy of gene (which is not lethal). and kids will stay resistant. there is always pressure of different factors!
similitudes:
July 4, 2010
11:04pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Legs changed ? how do we know ! we know they are not the same for sure. But doesn't mean the last one came from the previous one etc.
Just like cars. So for me this is only correlation.
I could agree that modern horse came from prehistoric horse, maybe it's the same specie (we don't have the old DNA ? do we ?) but not that it came from simple cellular organisms.
I've studied genetics at high school but I was not taught about evolution !
I don't understand your sickle cell example, what is it supposed to mean ?
I'd like to expose all my arguments but writing it down is quite some work and I don't know if it's worth telling you. Anyway, I might do it soon. Or maybe in a shorter version.
В итоге, я получила разнос теории эволюции
similitudes:
July 9, 2010
5:19pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Ok good news for you, I wrote down my argumentation, it's shorter than I thought.
Critic of the darwinian evolution theory, or why simple cell organisms could not have evolved to all known lifeforms.
# As we can observe, living organisms are perfect for what they have to accomplish in their environment.
Not only they are perfect but their perfection is complex in the sense that if they did not have one of several key features, their survival and consequently their reproduction and existence would be impossible.
This means that there is no "trial and error" or chance based evolution as any organism MUST be perfect right from its beginning.
# It is said that it takes a long time to get a new specie. Lets consider that it takes 50000 generations.
Generation +50000 is the new specie (C) while generation 1 is the old specie (A).
What specie is generation +49999 ? It's not C because we said that C needs 50000 generations to appear.
If it is A then it means that it took only ONE generation to get from A to C. If it is an intermediary specie (B) it also means that it took only one generation from B to C. Therefore, if evolution exists it is instantaneous.
# Where does a new specie come from ? We can doubt that organisms (phenotypes) are modified on the spot like werewolves. So it must happen in the genes only, in the sexual cells which are the spermatozoids and the ovum. But if DNA of specie B appears in the body of specie A, isn't this DNA going to be considered stranger and destroyed ? Even if it's not, how can specie A bear a child of specie B if what differentiates species is their inability to mix ?! And how could mother A give baby B the proper food and teachings ?
# A specie is a group of individuals. How can a new specie become a group individuals ?
First step there needs to be at least 8 parents (a male and a female of 8 different families because interbreeding is avoided) who will give birth to 4 animals (males and females) of the new specie, who will at their turn make 2 couples and give birth to 2 individuals (the minimum required for a specie to exist).
Step one supposes that 8 individuals will ALL, at the same TIME and PLACE (otherwise reproduction is impossible) engender the SAME new specie. Chances for this to happen are absurdly low.
и написала ответ
You:
July 11, 2010
11:00pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Ok, I'm ready to answer your points.
I see, you have some incomplete ideas about evolution. I mean the lack of biological education (no offense!)
So, your first statement was about the perfect creatures made by nature. We're not ideal, none of us. A human being could be ideal, with its brain and hands, but this gave us problems with giving birth to babies (as the pelvis is still too narrow to do it normally, like other animals.
And there are trials and errors. they are mutations. they exist and they are not obligate to appear..untill, there is an isolation.And that is one of the reasons new specie can appear.Yes, reproductive isolation is still one of the criteria of a specie. however, as there are interspecies hybridizations (like lion+tiger), there is another criterion such as isolation! they have different areas to live! and that makes them different species as well.
You've asked if it is possible to make a new specie in one generation. Well... there is a mistake. You imagine that there is one line that leads from one specie to another. However, that is not like that all the time. The real genesis of a specie is usually a split of one group of animals. Or it can be a merge of 2 different lines that live together.
So, I'll give you the classic scheme of forming a specie.
1) every population has its own set of mutations. they appear in every being and make this set. animals reproduct and there is a recombination in gametes that makes new combinations of this mutations.
2) imagine, that some of these animals came to an island. and the first population is split. But the subpopulation (B) has only the part of the genes of the whole polulation.
3) animals that live on the island reproduce and give birth to new animals. DOn't think they are so moral and there isn't any inbreeding. there is! If there are lethal genes together - loosers will die!
4) add the main thing that causes evolution: the selection!! The island has only one specific kind of food. the others who has bad stomack for it.. they will be weak. the ones, who have nice one - feed better and have good wifes. they give birth to brand new animals (C). Maybe it won't be impossible to hybridize the animals from the inicial population. But they are isolated!!
Notices.
Losers always die. if there is another kind of food suddenly, these specialised animals will die. and there would be another ones split from (B). they still have their set of genes to train on new conditions.
Посмотрим, что мне напишут в ответ.
И тут мы схлестнулись :)
Мое мнение ни капельки не поколеблено. Не знаю, есть ли смысл в колебании мнения этого непонятного человека, но я пробую
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
3:51pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
It's...the island of Dr Moreau !
No, better not. It's New Caledonia, a French territory.
Genetics huh ? Maybe you can explain me why species would come from evolution, because I don't agree much with this theory.
You:
July 1, 2010
4:04pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Wow,that's really cool to live there. But not forever,as pasific ocean is rather unpredictable.
Well.. All of us are made of cells,we have common embryological and physiological features. Also fossils. Not only stones,bones and prints,but also genetical ones. You know,there are genes that work and do their job. But also there are pseudogenes,that used to work in our ancestors millions years ago. But not know.
If all was made at once,why do we posess lots of that sequenses in dna?
Also.. I've always been surprised why there are dna,rna and stuff. And how could they gather. But there were billions of years,and billions of billions of molecules. So sure,they've found each other.
What do you find wrong in evolution?
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
4:21pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
How do we know that they USED to work ? we were not there and the date is not written on it. And how do we know that we had ancestors that were not humans ?
Maybe we possess lots of that sequence for self-adaptation (like environmental adaptation of the genes) and not for specy to specy evolution.
How old is the first DNA cell ? very old I think, and it was already extremely complex.
So it means that it was created quickly.
I can present you my full argumentation as to why I don't believe Darwinian evolution is possible, but it's going to be very long, so maybe I'll do it later.
You:
July 1, 2010
4:52pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Because they are homological to ones in fruit flyes or other creatures,including germs. They don't change like humans because the enviroment can't be the same all the time.
I'm sure.that cells with dna were cells from the very begining. Good thing now as we can prove lots of things using computers.
I'm very interesting in your opinion as one who knows that evolution is a fact.
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
5:01pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
A lot of things are homological and might have the same origin, but it doesn't mean that they evolved from each others.
The ONLY proof to evolution is to watch a specie give birth to a new specie, but this proof we don't have it, or do we ?
You:
July 1, 2010
5:25pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
We have bacteria! And insects that are resistant to poisons. And fungi,that are able to live everywhere.
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
5:28pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
And what are those things ?
You:
July 1, 2010
10:38pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
You mean fungi? I mean molds and other stuff like that.
Most of them are really hard to kill/
similitudes:
July 1, 2010
11:56pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
No I mean why you list them ? do they prove something ?
You:
July 2, 2010
9:43pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Sorry for the delayed answer.
Yep, they prove that selection is capable to make new forms of species. And mutations play great role in it.
I still want to know your opinion as I can't see the very first place that makes you doubt in evolution.
similitudes:
July 2, 2010
9:53pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
New species ? But what is a specie ? I think it's not very clear.
Fungi makes fungi, where is the new specie ?
You:
July 2, 2010
10:02pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Actually, specie is a population of organisms that share one territory and unable to have living offspring.
So I see now, you object that there aren't any "middle" forms. But there are. For example, multicellular organisms. Long time noone could find any intermediate form untill one found Trichoplax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax
You want to see how a fly became an elefant, but you never will. First of all, they belong to different branches of animal evolution, and second - it would've made in mmillions of years.
*и тут мой косяк, потому что трихоплакс не совсем по адресу*
similitudes:
July 2, 2010
10:12pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
unable to have living offspring ? You meant ABLE
Trichoplax is middle form of what and what ?
How do we know it is middle form ?
You:
July 2, 2010
10:29pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Sorry, sure there is able.
Well, trichoplax is not the best example as there are some different theories about its phylogeny.
There are some points that there was not progress, but regression of functions. But that is still in the clue of evolution as progress doesn't equals evolution. It just means that some forms feel better then overs.
You wanna proved intermediate forms. Like one specie becomes another one. Well, I guess, that horse evolution is pretty clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
similitudes:
July 2, 2010
10:45pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Ok, the horse, there is too much to read so tell me, what proof are there ?
They found animals that look very similar, but what are the proof.
Correlations are not causalities.
Everybody sees that new models of cars have something to do with old models, but cars don't reproduce ! we make them !
You:
July 4, 2010
10:06pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
They've proved that their legs were changed according to the changes of the planet. Like it happened when forestless places appeared. It is obvious, an animal just would be caught if it had paws with 5 or 3 fingers!
Heh, your statement seems as a try to disprove genetics.. Do you know that people with sickle-cell anaemia are resistant to malaria? Thought this type of anaemia could cause death and gene causing it wouldn't be distributed among ill person's offsring as one simply die and won't have it. Anyway, they could have only one copy of gene (which is not lethal). and kids will stay resistant. there is always pressure of different factors!
similitudes:
July 4, 2010
11:04pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Legs changed ? how do we know ! we know they are not the same for sure. But doesn't mean the last one came from the previous one etc.
Just like cars. So for me this is only correlation.
I could agree that modern horse came from prehistoric horse, maybe it's the same specie (we don't have the old DNA ? do we ?) but not that it came from simple cellular organisms.
I've studied genetics at high school but I was not taught about evolution !
I don't understand your sickle cell example, what is it supposed to mean ?
I'd like to expose all my arguments but writing it down is quite some work and I don't know if it's worth telling you. Anyway, I might do it soon. Or maybe in a shorter version.
В итоге, я получила разнос теории эволюции
similitudes:
July 9, 2010
5:19pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Ok good news for you, I wrote down my argumentation, it's shorter than I thought.
Critic of the darwinian evolution theory, or why simple cell organisms could not have evolved to all known lifeforms.
# As we can observe, living organisms are perfect for what they have to accomplish in their environment.
Not only they are perfect but their perfection is complex in the sense that if they did not have one of several key features, their survival and consequently their reproduction and existence would be impossible.
This means that there is no "trial and error" or chance based evolution as any organism MUST be perfect right from its beginning.
# It is said that it takes a long time to get a new specie. Lets consider that it takes 50000 generations.
Generation +50000 is the new specie (C) while generation 1 is the old specie (A).
What specie is generation +49999 ? It's not C because we said that C needs 50000 generations to appear.
If it is A then it means that it took only ONE generation to get from A to C. If it is an intermediary specie (B) it also means that it took only one generation from B to C. Therefore, if evolution exists it is instantaneous.
# Where does a new specie come from ? We can doubt that organisms (phenotypes) are modified on the spot like werewolves. So it must happen in the genes only, in the sexual cells which are the spermatozoids and the ovum. But if DNA of specie B appears in the body of specie A, isn't this DNA going to be considered stranger and destroyed ? Even if it's not, how can specie A bear a child of specie B if what differentiates species is their inability to mix ?! And how could mother A give baby B the proper food and teachings ?
# A specie is a group of individuals. How can a new specie become a group individuals ?
First step there needs to be at least 8 parents (a male and a female of 8 different families because interbreeding is avoided) who will give birth to 4 animals (males and females) of the new specie, who will at their turn make 2 couples and give birth to 2 individuals (the minimum required for a specie to exist).
Step one supposes that 8 individuals will ALL, at the same TIME and PLACE (otherwise reproduction is impossible) engender the SAME new specie. Chances for this to happen are absurdly low.
и написала ответ
You:
July 11, 2010
11:00pm NOVST
Re: Why never smile ?
Ok, I'm ready to answer your points.
I see, you have some incomplete ideas about evolution. I mean the lack of biological education (no offense!)
So, your first statement was about the perfect creatures made by nature. We're not ideal, none of us. A human being could be ideal, with its brain and hands, but this gave us problems with giving birth to babies (as the pelvis is still too narrow to do it normally, like other animals.
And there are trials and errors. they are mutations. they exist and they are not obligate to appear..untill, there is an isolation.And that is one of the reasons new specie can appear.Yes, reproductive isolation is still one of the criteria of a specie. however, as there are interspecies hybridizations (like lion+tiger), there is another criterion such as isolation! they have different areas to live! and that makes them different species as well.
You've asked if it is possible to make a new specie in one generation. Well... there is a mistake. You imagine that there is one line that leads from one specie to another. However, that is not like that all the time. The real genesis of a specie is usually a split of one group of animals. Or it can be a merge of 2 different lines that live together.
So, I'll give you the classic scheme of forming a specie.
1) every population has its own set of mutations. they appear in every being and make this set. animals reproduct and there is a recombination in gametes that makes new combinations of this mutations.
2) imagine, that some of these animals came to an island. and the first population is split. But the subpopulation (B) has only the part of the genes of the whole polulation.
3) animals that live on the island reproduce and give birth to new animals. DOn't think they are so moral and there isn't any inbreeding. there is! If there are lethal genes together - loosers will die!
4) add the main thing that causes evolution: the selection!! The island has only one specific kind of food. the others who has bad stomack for it.. they will be weak. the ones, who have nice one - feed better and have good wifes. they give birth to brand new animals (C). Maybe it won't be impossible to hybridize the animals from the inicial population. But they are isolated!!
Notices.
Losers always die. if there is another kind of food suddenly, these specialised animals will die. and there would be another ones split from (B). they still have their set of genes to train on new conditions.
Посмотрим, что мне напишут в ответ.