A new theory predicts that evolution in humans and other creatures can occur in a short time and in a faster way than any known Darwinian mechanism * Don't worry, this is not creationism but a more inclusive view from the point of view that supports evolution
In recent days, an Ilanit conference (Israeli Associations for Experimental Biology) was held in Eilat. This is the largest biology conference in Israel, with an audience of more than 1600 biologists from all over the country. The various lecturers at the conference were selected from among the best researchers in biology, biotechnology and biomedical engineering. As one of the participants in the conference put it, "If there was an attack here now, the entire science of biology in Israel would have deteriorated 30 years ago."
One of the most interesting lectures was given by Professor Eugene Rosenberg, who spoke about non-Darwinian evolution. The theory of evolution according to Darwin is based on small gradual changes in DNA - the hereditary material of organisms. The changes that benefit the organism in the short term remain in the population and form the basis for the creation of new species that are better adapted to the environment.
Professor Rosenberg claims that when talking about the evolution of organisms, one must refer to the organism and its immediate environment, and not to the organism itself. Humans, for example, have a genome containing about 20,000 genes. But man will not live by himself! In the intestines of all humans there are populations of billions of beneficial bacteria, which have different and important functions in the body. They help stimulate the immune system, break down food that the intestines could not handle on their own, produce various vitamins and even fight against invading bacteria. Without the bacteria living inside us, our lives would not be alive.
Beneficial bacteria and fungi exist in huge quantities also on the surface of our skin and in the woman's vagina. If we also count the number of different genes present in these bacteria and fungi, we will find that in fact a single human being contains approximately 250,000 different genes in his body, even though most of them are not his own.
When we look at the evolution of an organism like man, we come to the understanding that it is not possible to talk about man without referring to the thousands of species of bacteria and fungi in his body. As the human genome can undergo mutations, so can any of the bacteria and fungi. In the case of a harmful mutation - for example one that would create a new species of bacteria that release a toxin that weakens the host - the person in whose body the bacteria exists will become extinct due to their inability to cope with the environment. But in the event that a beneficial mutation occurs - for example one that allows one of the species of bacteria in the intestine to digest cellulose - then the person inside whom the bacteria is found will have a survival advantage.
So far the idea is similar to the usual way in which evolution works - changes in the genome lead to a survival advantage that is preserved from father to son. But between the new theory and the existing one there is a fundamental difference in the speed of evolution. Our bacteria come from the environment that surrounds us. From every girl we kiss in the club, we get different strains of gut bacteria present in her body. Every time we bathe in the pool, we are exposed to the intestinal bacteria of the neighbor's child. Even in a casual handshake with the Japanese ambassador in Israel, we get entire populations of the bacteria present on his skin (and most likely on the skin of most Japanese people as well).
This means that bacteria that undergo a beneficial - or harmful - mutation in one person can spread within decades to the rest of the population. On the evolutionary scale used today, this is literally a hind eyelid. In less than one generation, a beneficial or harmful mutation affecting an entire organism can spread to the entire population. Since nowadays one person can visit the entire world in less than a year, the full meaning is that a mutation that develops in one bacterium in one person can spread to the entire human population on Earth. Assuming that mutation is not fatal but merely unpleasant, the entire human race can carry it within a few years.
As an example of such a possible mutation, the bacteria in the female vagina can be brought. A change in the population of bacteria in the vagina, caused by a mutation in one of the strains, can lead to excessive dryness of the vagina, which will turn intercourse into a painful nightmare for the woman. We may be seeing a different mutation in the gut bacteria in today's America, where an alarmingly high percentage of people are obese. A definite cause of the 'obesity epidemic' has yet to be discovered, but is it possible that it is a mutation of one of the strains of intestinal bacteria, which spread in less than two generations to the majority of the population of the United States? Alternatively, a beneficial mutation in the population of bacteria and fungi growing on our skin could lead to people with healthier skin that is less sensitive to the sun's rays.
It is impossible to turn a blind eye to the new theory, which is based on common sense. Real evidence for the theory came recently from Rosenberg's laboratory, in experiments on inferior animals. The conclusions that emerge from the theory open a new world of understanding for biologists, which can help decipher diseases and a deeper and more correct understanding of evolution and the animal world.
29 תגובות
The theory of biological evolution is based on the layered structure of the fossils and the dating of the layers. I repeat the words of one of the evolutionists living in Britain today. He said that it is enough to find a single case of a dinosaur with a rabbit skeleton in its mouth (a mammal that lived during the time of the dinosaurs) for the theory of evolution to collapse. Such a joint has not been found to this day. The most problematic element of the theory of evolution is the claim that the complexity of developed organisms is the result of accidental mutations. It is clear that there were mutations and it is clear that the duration of life on earth (and the duration of mutations) is about three and a half billion years, but on the face of it, it seems that this duration is also too short to create such complex beings built on coincidences. On the other hand, it is difficult to accept creationism which claims that the mutations were caused by a superior intelligent force; If he is so intelligent why did it take him three and a half billion years to create us?
All in all, it is clear beyond any doubt that the animal world was not created all at once six thousand years ago and it is clear beyond any doubt that the development of the animal world is gradual and built on gradual and cumulative mutations. Not clear to science
(in my opinion) what directed the mutations; Coincidence does not seem a sufficient explanation.
The ten percent myth has always been just a myth.
Not only that all the experiments that have been done show that every part of the brain that has been tested has a function (and it will always be possible to argue that there are certain neurons that have not been tested) but that making this claim as a scientific claim is problematic because even if a part of the brain is found that we have not yet found its function, it would not be proof that he has no role.
The science of biology is replete with examples of organs or materials whose function our level of knowledge at one point or another did not know. The cecum is one example and "junk" DNA is another.
People also tend to overlook important features that are sometimes needed in biological systems when it comes to redundancy for backup.
Roy talked about lucky people who after a brain injury manage to return and function.
This is a result of the redundancy that exists in the brain for backup needs.
Indeed, the brain has great flexibility which is also expressed in the fact that parts of the brain are able to take on the roles of other parts to help the individual recover and continue to produce offspring. This kind of redundancy, despite the linguistic similarity to the word "redundant" is not such and it gives an evolutionary advantage. We often build such redundancy even in essential artificial systems (such as computers, power supply system, etc.).
In all situations where redundancy is used, the damage to the immediate performance capabilities is significantly less, but there is one thing that is significantly damaged and that is the redundancy itself and the recovery ability it provides.
Ami,
I was not aware that 10 years ago it was acceptable otherwise. Do you have a link or reference for the claim?
Sorry,
By mistake my name did not appear at the top of the message
The signature of course gives away my identity, but it is appropriate to add them here as well in an orderly manner.
Dear friends, my father, Roy and Mrs. Petar:
Today it is acceptable to claim what you claim regarding the utilization of the entire brain. 10 years ago it was acceptable otherwise. One has to assume that in ten years the situation may change. It seems to me that it is appropriate to put these caveats behind every firm statement and answer that is given as if casually to an innocent questioner who might take the answers as final and absolute scientific truth.
I also want to thank Roy for the exhaustive answer regarding non-Darwinian evolution. In my opinion, there is a flaw and bias in looking at the animal world:
Biofilms in general and bacteria (or microorganisms) are everywhere! I say this very emphatically. as final and absolute scientific truth. If we correct it a little then it should be said: are everywhere where the temperatures range from minus one hundred to plus one hundred degrees Celsius. At these temperatures there is life - as far as we know. Given this, all animals, without exception, come into constant contact with bacteria and undergo co-evolution together with them. The specific examples of normal flora in our vagina or intestines are meaningless. There is no place where bacteria do not grow and there is no place where there are no interactions between the bacteria and its environment. The examples given are not exceptional and therefore do not indicate, in my opinion, a special mechanism of non-Darwinian evolution.
By the way, don't let my words be interpreted as if I am blindly supporting Darwinian evolution. On the contrary! The Darwinist theory (or to be more precise - the Darwinist hypothesis) is definitely an issue that needs to be proven and another vision for the time being. In the meantime, more and more other theories are emerging that are not easy challenges for what was considered for many years to be so holy and sacred.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Sorry, I didn't see that it was already answered
Jonathan and
The rumor that we use about a tenth of our brain capacity is probably a baseless rumor.
During life we use all kinds of parts of the brain, maybe not all the parts at the same time but in total many parts of it are used.
By the way, no one said that intelligence is an evolutionary upgrade and rightly so. As evidence of this - the average number of offspring in a family decreases as the parents are more educated and careerists and vice versa.
Another view - after all, the greatest and most genius people in the history of mankind were killed at their wits' end and most of them died young without leaving genetic traces of their genius (that is, without leaving descendants who would pass on this "trait" in an evolutionary way).
That was said
Ignorance is bliss
Hello Jonathan,
This is an excellent question, but the answer is very simple. In fact, it is disappointingly simple.
In short, the assertion that the brain uses only 10% of its capacity is incorrect.
By extension, this urban legend came from experiments conducted on mice between 1920 and 1940. In these experiments, a researcher named Carl Lashley demonstrated that he could remove significant areas from the brains of mice, and still make the mice learn specific tasks.
Note that all that is tested is the ability of the mice to relearn manual tasks - for example, to remember that there is cheese around the corner and therefore it is worth running around the corner to get to the tasty cheese.
But, mice are not people.
No area in the human brain has yet been discovered that does not serve any purpose. A person who loses even a small part of his mind in an accident or illness pays for it with his personality and/or his intellectual and emotional abilities. It does not seem that there is an area of the brain that can be destroyed without damaging brain function. As further proof, electrical stimulations that are applied to different points in the brain during surgeries have not yet revealed areas that are not involved in the motor, emotional or sensory function of the patient being operated on.
I suppose you can find a lucky person who, if you remove large parts of their brain, can relearn tasks. Maybe he can even learn that there is cheese around the corner. But I find it hard to believe that he would be able to control his body enough to go to her on his own, grab her in his hand and lift her to his mouth, or feel joy at the achievement or sorrow at his condition.
The myth of the active 10% in the brain has been preserved from those days to our present day, and most likely it will continue for a long time. He is just so powerful. It's easy to throw it in any encouragement book, and it adds a scientific twist to what every son of Mother Poland already knows by heart: we have the ability to do so much more, if we just try a little harder (!).
And the truth is that mother's sentence is actually true, but it is also true regardless of the myth.
I hope I answered your question,
Roy.
To Jonathan:
What is meant by this is that people use only 10% (the number is not necessarily exact) of their brain capacity on average at a point in time.
But over time we use all our brain cells, and it is enough to understand that a mathematical exercise and reading an article in English activate cells with different purposes in the brain and you can see that we do not use all the cells in the brain at the same time, but only the cells that are suitable for the circumstances.
to Jonathan and The answer is simple, it is simply not true, the brain uses all its cells, at most it has a redundant processing capacity.
There is a question that has interested me for a long time on the topic of evolution, maybe this is the place to ask it.
Some believe that we only use 10 percent of our brain capacity.
On the other hand, the brain is one of the most wasteful organs in energy consumption.
Therefore, I would expect that evolutionarily we will shed parts of our wasteful brain until we use its full potential.
It is not clear to me how the 2 claims fit together.. If any of you have an answer I would love to hear it
Yehuda:
Annely this link will interest you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Yehuda,
The definition of differentiating between different species is their inability to breed with each other and produce fertile offspring. There are many mutations that result in the inability to reproduce. a few examples :
1. Inability of the sperm of one species to break into the egg of a creature of a different species, or at all to reach the egg (sperm cells from different creatures have different appearance and different properties).
2. Even if the sperm managed to penetrate the egg, the genetic content may simply be too different to develop an embryo based on the chromosomal load of the mother (say a cat) and the chromosomal load of the father (say a mouse). In this case, the egg may not start the process of creating the embryo, or the embryo will self-abort at a very young age of a few days, and the cells that make it up will be absorbed into the mother's body.
3. Even if everything works out, it is possible that the offspring of two species will not be fertile. Why this happens is not entirely clear to me, but the most common example of this case is the mule.
Good Day,
Roy.
To Roy Cezana
Thanks for the exhaustive explanation.
I never understood what was the moment when mutated productions became another species, and your explanation leads to the understanding of how it is possible to create new species with the help of bacteria.
The question - is there also another mechanism that will do the act of creating a new species?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hello Uri,
I have already shaken several hands in Japan. Although it is not accepted as part of Japanese culture originally, Japanese businessmen sometimes shake the hands of Westerners.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
"In a casual handshake with the Japanese ambassador in Israel..." In Japan it is not acceptable to shake hands! Enough ignorance!
Hello my people,
Regarding the use of the word inferior, the meaning here was 'primitive'. This is a description of an animal that developed earlier in evolution, such as sponges.
The Darwinist theory stands in its place and respect is put in its place. The purpose of the article is to bring a slightly different way of thinking - but very practical - with the help of which it can be shown that the Darwinist theory, which is supported by a mechanism of inheritance from parents to offspring in man as a single organism, is not valid when we see man as a 'holobiont' - the organism together with the other organisms in and around it.
The Darwinist theory states that a mutation in an organism should spread through natural selection in the population, which takes a very long time considering natural selection. According to my understanding of the 'holobiont' theory, a mutation in a whole organism can spread to the entire population in a very short time. The reason for this is, as you mentioned, the short life cycle of bacteria, as well as their ability to divide 'horizontally', without real parents.
I agree that the Darwinian theory in itself remains flexible and exists for each individual organism in its own right. But when we view the total organism, we realize that its ultimate evolution may not be Darwinian.
a few examples :
The bacteria that allow cows to digest cellulose. If they were to undergo a mutation that harms or helps the process, then the new overall organism would lose one of its most important properties, or optimize it.
Bacteria and fungi present in the female vagina. Let's assume that a mutation in a certain bacterium in the vagina causes it to secrete toxins that harm sperm cells that penetrate the vagina, unless they present a certain protein that differs from the normal gender (which requires a mutation in the male). The result is that in practice we have received a new species of humans, who cannot mate with other humans but only with each other.
The example that Professor Rosenberg himself gave in the lecture dealt with sponges, and is a subject of news in itself. He said that the bleaching of sponges is due to a bacterium called Vibrio shiloii, and that after repeated infections with the bacterium, the sponges in his laboratory developed resistance to it.
But how is it possible that sponges develop resistance? After all, they don't have their own immune system!
The answer, according to Rosenberg, is that the vast population of bacteria living on top of the sponge evolved and neutralized the vibrio shiloi. It is interesting that all sponges at once underwent this evolution. That is, the bacteria evolved and then quickly moved from sponge to sponge and imbibed immunity to Vibrio Shiloi.
I hope I explained myself better,
Have a nice weekend,
Roy.
I agree with the title, given the example of cellulose digestion that nicely demonstrates how evolution is not Darwinian in the usual sense.
Right. The title of the article is incorrect.
I agree with Ami Bachar, everything seems to me to be an evolutionary development of the system of creatures living in common
The title of the article is unacceptable.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
First, I want to express a protest regarding the use of the word "inferior" at the end of the article. Animals that exist today are in no way inferior to others and are just as modern and advanced as all the rest. The intention is probably to say that they are simpler and have fewer systems with lower complexity - but this is definitely different from using the word "inferior".
Second, I cannot understand where in this article an evolutionary or non-evolutionary theory appears. I couldn't get to the bottom of the matter. From the article I learned that there is a conference in Eilat and Prof. Eugene Rosenberg (who by the way is considered one of the most important bacteria researchers in the world) talked about the symbiotic relationship between humans and microorganisms.
Is what makes the co-evolution of man and his bacteria "non-Darwinian" is the fast time scale that results from a bacteria's short life cycle? If this is what the whole matter is about, then it is a trivial matter and there is no systematic attack on the Darwinist Torah at the essential level.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Reina is certainly very interesting, that intestinal bacteria developed into burger companies within 100 years, amazing.
Hello Adam,
You rely on Behe's irreducible complexity argument. Behe claimed that it is not possible to imagine a partial creation of complex organs such as the brain, eyes, or even a single cell's shoot. Each part of them does not function without the other parts, so it is clear to know that all the parts had to be created together.
Bihi's argument has already been disproved regarding the bacterial shouton, after scientists showed that there are more primitive versions of the shouton that do not contain all the necessary parts - but still function. Similarly, we find primitive eyes that are stages in the development of more complex eyes like ours. These primitive eyes also work well, although they do not have all the elements that our eyes have.
And of course, the brain. All animals today have a brain, and the vast majority have a more primitive brain than ours. Even worms have a brain based on a very small number of neurons, but already there you can see the division into sides that we notice in our brain. The more developed the animals, the more developed their brains. That is, it is certainly possible to break down the brain into parts and bring about its gradual evolution.
It is important to note that Behe was refuted in a public arena, in front of a judge who had no prior knowledge about evolution.
As for the directed hand you are referring to, it is natural selection, which makes sure that the individuals in which a positive mutation was created gain the survival advantage.
Good Day,
Roy.
Hello Roy
First of all, you know how to respond in a dignified way, because all of them that I spoke to responded to me the way any average person responds, and I mean in a very blunt way...
I will copy you a quote from a scientific website that details about natural selection...:
"Natural selection is at the basis of the theory of evolution. The selection of the individuals best suited to the environment, in combination with the existence of a certain variety thanks to mutations, causes a change in the frequency of traits in the population over time, that is, evolution. The environment itself is also not constant, therefore along with the change of the environment changes also The traits that best suit it, therefore natural selection can cause far-reaching changes in the traits of a certain species over time."
...
According to this quote, it follows that the process of natural selection depends on the selection of the creatures best suited to the environment + mutations that occur over millions of years, all of this causes evolution... The article also emphasizes that the cause is not fixed and therefore the final product that will be created depends on fate...
That is, the strain + the types of mutations are the ones that determine the production we will receive,
A simple calculation will bring us to the clear knowledge that without a deliberate hand that arranges exactly what mutations will happen according to the environment, the chance of such a thing being formed is impossible even within hundreds of millions of years....
(To remind you of the complexity of the brain, the eyes, a "simple" cell, surely all of this is not possible if there is no hand directing all the processes)
Hello Adam,
thank you for your response. Unfortunately you do not refer to the scientific theory of evolution in your argument. The theory of evolution does not claim that life develops randomly but through natural selection and over hundreds of millions of years.
I hope you don't try to blow up cars to prove your point, as there is nothing to it and the theory you oppose.
Good Day,
Roy.
In general, we are talking here about two different systems of evolution that are developing, that of men and that of women, so that one should not necessarily talk about human evolution as one unit but rather as two units that work together to transfer genes.
Another logical conclusion :- kissing with men will also improve the set of genes and the evolution of the kissers.
And regarding what was said about germs in pools, I ask not to pee in the Sea of Galilee
Have a rainy weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You are still ready to accept these crooked theories that a considerable part of the scientists said desperately, which are full of few reasons, some of them are probabilistic reasons regarding the possible chance, if any, of the formation of living beings as a result of an explosion and development, this is really a crooked and wrong theory.... If I put a 200 kilo load and next to it spare parts of a car No matter how many times I blow up the charger, I will never get a car in my life... Now those scientists come who call themselves "enlightened" with such a ridiculous claim that indeed it is possible... and what is possible is not creating a car from an explosion but creating a living organism that is a billion times more complex than a car... Excuse me Me but either you are blind or you do not want to admit the existence of God because he is binding?!?!?
...
Therefore, in conclusion, I suggest that you know that an explosion and evolutionary development did not create this world...unless a higher power that, for the sake of the poor, is called God
From this we can conclude that basically, we are all one big shit.
"From every girl we kiss in the club, we get different strains of gut bacteria present in her body."