Julia was raised as an ordinary girl in one of the Indian tribes of the Sierra Madre in Mexico, and only when she reached adulthood did the symptoms that would make her the female gorilla of Europe begin to appear.
Sometimes I find myself overloaded with work, worries, presentations that need to be prepared and materials that need to be read. And then, precisely in the midst of all the stress and stress and frustration, I find a glimmer of a mention of a special soul. And I leave everything and start reading, drawn into the story of other people's lives, and I know that the muse has already caught me. I have to write. Not for me, but to tell the story of others who are no longer with us. And I put off all work and commitments until tomorrow, that tomorrow that sometimes never comes, and sit in front of the computer and empty fragments of other people's souls into the screen while the house is gloomy and sleepy.
This is one of those times.
In the book of Genesis, the good God creates Adam and entrusts to him the most important work of all - "every beast of the field... every bird of the sky, and came to man, to see what he would call him; And whatever man calls a living soul, that is his name."
You can believe in the Bible or ignore it, but it must be admitted that we as humans have been particularly successful in cataloging. We catalog every hour, every day, sometimes without even noticing. Our zoologists divide animals into different species, while including under each species many individual animals that differ from each other in small details that are unimportant to zoologists - but may be critical to the animal itself.
We ourselves, although we define ourselves as human beings, are terribly different from each other. We differ from each other in the color of our skin, hair and eyes. We differ in the shape of our teeth, our height and width. And most importantly - we are different due to that huge group of nerve cells that sits inside our skull, and determines our character. And yet, we dare to generalize all of us under the same heading, as human beings.
We don't do it by choice, exactly. There is simply no other possibility, in such a rich world, to reach real insights without making generalizations. It is said that when one of the geologists of the 19th century was reprimanded for his tendency to make generalizations and unite groups of gems under different categories, he reacted in an unusual way: he jumped into a digging hole, picked up one small stone after another and gave each of them its own name and description. Before long, with their mailboxes flooded with the individual stones he sent them, even his academic opponents were forced to admit that science requires us to make generalizations.
And yet, sometimes we scientists - and human beings in general - find ourselves facing a truly difficult challenge. A kind of creature that we find difficult to define or generalize according to the common categories of that time. Such a dilemma troubles us a lot, because it contradicts the natural order of things that we have come to know: a man is a man, and a monkey is a monkey. And if this is not the case, where are we coming?
This was the question Julia Pasterna, the woman suspected of being Darwin's missing link, also asked herself.
We do not know the story of Julia's birth, or how her mother reacted when she first saw her offspring. Maybe she just thought the baby was incredibly ugly - with a wide, flat nose, thick lips and big ears. But there is no love like a mother's love. Julia was raised as an ordinary girl in one of the Indian tribes of Sierra Madre in Mexico, and only when she reached adulthood did the symptoms that would make her the female gorilla of Europe begin to appear.
A woman and a gorilla, a man and a monkey. A connection of titles that bypasses and crosses categories and species. These names were not given to her in vain. In appearance, Julia reminded a small gorilla, or orangutan. Her height did not exceed a meter and forty centimeters and her neck was short and wide. Her lower jaws were drawn forward, similar to those of the gorilla. But the most visible characteristic, and the one that earned her the title of 'the woman with the beard', was the hair. The same curly and thick hair, black and thick, that covered every part of her body except her hands and feet. The same long hair also grew from her forehead and chin, creating the appearance of a real ape-man.
If she had stayed in the tribe in which she was born, the world probably would not have heard about her. But when one of the people from the entertainment industry visited Mexico, he immediately recognized the marketing potential of the twenty-year-old young woman. He lured Julia to America with dreams of acceptance and belonging - that well-known honey trap even today, which equates the love of the crowd with true love. And Julia packed her things and left following the dream. A small and ignorant monkey woman, who could not speak English or read.
And she took the world by storm.
'Freak' circuses were a common act at the time, but Julia was so successful that she could draw people and put on an entire show on her own. She toured alone with various promoters, wearing clothes that left her furry arms, legs and shoulders exposed. She would come on stage, and her appearance alone would be enough to make a fair woman or two swoon and dogs start barking. Then she opened her mouth and the miracle began to happen. The forced fusion of the species, the ape and the human, is cracked and broken into pieces.
Because Julia was a real person, and she fought to be recognized as such. She learned to speak English, and later also to read. She would spend her time reading romantic literature, and in her dreams she would become the beautiful and desirable young woman, like the heroines of the books. She learned to dance, sing and tell jokes. And she would give this whole package to the stunned audience sitting in front of her, when she danced with delicacy and sang with her sweet voice that managed to reach the heights of talented mezzo-sopranos. She amused them with her humor, her gentle warmth and her high intelligence. The audience entered the hall to see Darwin's missing link, the monster who took the form of a monkey, but found himself falling in love with a man. It was the love and appreciation that Julia needed so much, for which she staged the shows in cities around the world. But she needed more than that. She needed true love, and she found it. It was the love that killed her at the age of twenty-eight.
Julia's last promoter, one Theodore Lent, realized that she was going to leave him and move to another manager. To prevent the situation, he managed to convince the young woman that he was in love with her. This was the love Julia had read about in the books - a love that ignores the jar and concentrates on what's in it. The years soon got married, and Julia became pregnant and gave birth to her only son in frozen Moscow.
Every parent prays that his children will inherit from him the good, and not the bad. To be more beautiful, smarter, more successful than him. Let them not make the mistakes he himself made in his life. These hopes fade for most parents as the years go by, but Julia didn't have to wait years. The son she bore inherited her monkey features and her thick fur. The birth itself was difficult and tore her womb, but the fate that awaited the newborn tore her heart. The trauma led to her death a few days after the birth, and the last words she uttered were - "I die happy; I know that I was loved for my own sake."
What could have been the fate of Julia's son? Would he have grown into a boy and a man with joy in life, humor and intelligence like his mother? We will never be able to know this, since he also passed away less than two days after birth.
Julia was a person. We know this today without doubt, without question. She had a rare genetic mutation, perhaps more than one, that caused long hair to grow on every patch of skin on her body. Her gums were swollen and caused her lower jaw to continue forward. But despite all this, she was a person outwardly and inwardly - unlike, perhaps, the man who promised her his love. He exhumed Julia's body and the body of their shared baby, and exhibited the bodies on tours around Europe. He found another monkey woman and married her as well, and towards the end of his life he lost his sanity and was hospitalized in an insane asylum in Russia, where he died.
Julia's mummified body is still kept at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Norway. It is not revealed to the general public. The public does not want to see her at all. Without the life, the vitality, the humanity that was in her, Julia's body became a daunting paradox, an apparent combination of a man and an ape. She is not sent for burial, due to the hope that it will be possible to extract information about the mutations that shaped her body in such a precarious way.
Today we know that Julia was just one of many who suffered from a genetic disease known as hypertrichosis and manifests itself in unrestrained growth of hair all over the body. The genetic origin of the disease is today linked to several different mutations, and it is likely that there are several more mutations that cause it but have not yet been discovered. Perhaps, thanks to the studies that will still take place on Julia's body, we will be able to locate the various genetic factors and allow the generalization that groups them all under the name of one disease. Perhaps, thanks to the woman who broke the boundaries of the definition of her time, we will be able to break the boundaries nowadays.
80 תגובות
I wonder how births were then...
With all the high-tech technologies in medicine, it is now much easier to test the theory of evolution
Thank you very much for the fascinating information!
A very important and interesting lecture
-
A proud family
http://www.gaylaw.co.il
Amazing, how many things we learn every day
Thank you for the information
Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity
http://universe-life.com/2011/07/10/seed-of-human-chimp-genomes-diversity/
Nov 2, 2005 Dov, in biological evolution forum.
Biological Evolution's Seeds of Diversity, Human and Chimpanzee/Bonobo Genomes.
Chapter One, In which some wonder what made us human.
Three recent quotations from Science, representative of many other recent similar statements in various scientific publications:
A) "Understanding the genetic basis of how genotype generates phenotype will require increasing the accuracy and completeness of the currently available chimpanzee genome sequence, as well as sequencing other primate genomes."
B)"Can we now provide a DNA-based answer to the fascinating and fundamental question, "What makes us human?" Not at all! Comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes has not yet offered any major insights into the genetic elements that underlie bipedal locomotion, big brain, linguistic abilities, elaborated abstract thought, or any other unique aspect of the human phenomenon.”
C) "What makes us human?" This question may be answered by comparing human and chimpanzee genomes and phenomes, and ultimately those of other primates. To this end, we need to understand how genotype generates phenotype, and how this process is influenced by the physical, biological, and cultural environment.”
Chapter Two, In which is explained plainly and succinctly the obvious route by which we evolved, ie that genotype has not generated phenotype, that we evolved from our genotype via a group of feedback loops.
From Science, Vol 308, Issue 5728, 1563-1565 , 10 June 2005, Immunology: Opposites Attract in Differentiating T Cells, Mark Bix, Sunhwa Kim, Anjana Rao: "During differentiation, precursor cells with progressively narrowed potential give rise to progeny cells that adopt one of two (or more) divergent cell fates. This choice is influenced by intricate regulatory networks acting at multiple levels. Early in differentiation, precursor cells show low-level activation of all progeny genetic programs. Bias toward a given lineage comes from environmental inputs that activate powerful positive- and negative-feedback loops, which work in concert to impose selective gene expression patterns".
Chapter Three, In which we explain the revolutionary evolved uniqueness of the human ape's phenotype: The 6My-old revolutionary life evolution was initiated by our forefathers who adapted from life in semi- or tropical forest circumstances to life on plains. Changes in living posture and circumstances led to modified perceptive/adaptive experiences and capabilities. Developing employment of tools effected enhanced differentiation of hands from legs and enhanced standing posturing. As evolving community culture led to language communication humans have gradually replaced adaptation to changed circumstances with self-evolving cultures/civilizations for control and modification of much of their circumstances. This is essentially similar to early life's cellular evolution, but with culture functioning for humans for change/control of circumstances instead of genetic and protein tooling that function for the in-cell genomes for adapting their cell's physiology to changing circumstances.
Chapter Four, In which appears, may be, genetic evidence/demonstration of the workings of human cultural evolution.
(a) From Science, 2 Sept 2005: "Page's team compared human and chimp Ys to see whether either lineage has lost functional genes since they split. The researchers found that the chimp had indeed suffered the slings and arrows of evolutionary fortune. Of the 16 functional genes in this part of the human Y, chimps had lost the function of five due to mutations. In contrast, humans had all 11 functional genes also seen on the chimp Y. "The human Y chromosome hasn't lost a gene in 6 million years," says Page. "It seems like the demise of the hypothesis of the demise of the Y," says geneticist Andrew Clark of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York."
(b) But look at this: From Science, Vol 309, 16 Sept 2005, Evolving Sequence and Expression:"An analysis of the evolution of both gene sequences and expression patterns in humans and chimpanzees...shows that...surprisingly, genes expressed in the brain have changed more on the human lineage than on the chimpanzee lineage, not only in terms of gene expression but also in terms of amino acid sequences".
Surprisingly…???
Chapter Five and conclusion,
In which I suggest that detailed study of other creatures that, like humans, underwent radical change of living circumstances, for example ocean-dwelling mammals, might bring to light unique evolutionary processes and features of evolutionary implications similar to those of humans.
end.
Dov Hennis
(comments from the 22nd century)
Earth life genesis from aromaticity-H bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
Great article. The introduction was a bit too long for my taste, but the story is excellent and well written.
Waiting for the next articles!
His question was released, and Michael answered it, there are simply keywords that were misused and I uploaded them to the system, which checks and if they are found, it delays the response automatically.
A religious site does not delete questions or just discussions??
Who are you working on ??
And men do not murder, rape or beat. Everything is an invention of women.
Right?
http://www.youtube.com/user/NuBemet
And in relation to response 65:
I would love to see examples of biologists who agree with the response. If you don't find it, then maybe it's better to call yourself "the lie"
The "truth":
Here is another testimony to the great "understanding" of Daniel Blass:
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/evolution-god-main.html
By the way - it's time for you to stop pretending to be someone who is looking for some kind of truth and identify yourself with a more appropriate title - "creationist", "evolution denier", "religious" or anything similar.
Truth:
This person doesn't understand anything and if it's more than you understand then you're in dire straits. The truth is that it seems that he did not read the things at all and did not see the video at all.
But it is waiting for approval from the website, hope it will be approved
This answer I presented is at a high biological level and there are even biologists who agree with it, so I expect a serious response and not an elegant evasion...
To Michael Rothschild:
I showed your link to a person who knows more about this subject than me and he wrote like this:http://www.hydepark.co.il/topic.asp?cat_id=24&topic_id=2893930&forum_id=4142
This was written specifically for this discussion, so I hope they will respect the effort and not block me again.. The clerics will never block answers or questions from people who, in general, are conducting a discussion, especially that it is about the modern man, Homo sapiens, who should be an example relative to all the animals of the world, and especially to receive opinions from A species of its own kind..
R. H. and Amat:
I certainly agree with everything that R. H. wrote, but in my opinion the data he brought do not constitute a direct answer to the article in question.
The article claims that new species are not created but small variations on an existing species are created.
It is indeed an idiotic claim that many small variations add up to a large variation, but the examples provided by R.H. are of small variations - ones that the article agrees with exist - and therefore do not refute his nonsense.
What does refute these are the findings I pointed to in response 56, which are unequivocal confirmation that different species have a common origin.
R. H.,
Thank you very much for the detailed information
Real,
It's very simple. The article is divided into 2 parts: 1) a "scientific" part that determines what is true about evolution and what is not true 2) an "interpretive" part that claims that the Sages knew and understood evolution. With your permission, we will refer to the first part.
The claim in this section that evolution is divided into two parts 1) Microevolution, in which creatures change small changes. On this the author agrees with the scientists (which is also a huge advance because before they did not agree on this either.
2) Macroevolution, which according to the author refers to the emergence of new species. The author claims that since the 6th day of Genesis there has been no macroevolution, nor has the collection and accumulation of small changes defined as microevolution produced what he calls macroevolution.
The answer is very simple. Open a newspaper or a news site from last week and read a bit about the bacteria that killed dozens of people in Germany. Where did he come from? There are three options:
1) He was created two weeks ago, no one agrees on that, including the author who claims that there has been no creation since the days of Genesis
2) created in an evolutionary process
3) which was created in the six days of Genesis and for some reason for 5700 years hid and did not contaminate a single vegetable.
Now add to that the appearance of the Sars virus, the bird flu, the AIDS virus, oil-dissolving bacteria and other types of microorganisms that suddenly appear. Did everyone hide? Did they all come about by microevolution alone? And what about new bacteria that are created in the laboratory with natural tools that are all taken from nature, that is, the scientists use things that happen all the time for the purpose of creating new species. What about mice containing a human immune system? Were they here from the days of Genesis or did man mercifully acquire abilities from the Creator?
No and no, we simply use tools learned from nature based on the theory of evolution (changes + selections)
Truth:
Indeed - it is very popular to deny evolution and the main reason for this is that many people were captured as babies by the monotheistic religions which is just one of the contradictions with reality that they have to face and therefore they take all possible means.
The point is that nonsense remains nonsense regardless of the number of people saying it.
In the case of the specific article you brought - it seems to me that the ammunition I gave you is enough to convince anyone whose mind is not completely turned off - that this is serious nonsense.
It is true that I was not ready to read all the nonsense in it but - as I promised - I showed that the main claim in it is a false claim.
Therefore - if someone approaches you with this article, you can easily circus them.
If you have another article that you don't know how to disqualify - show it here.
truth (55)
In two words: some nonsense (in one article).
There is indeed a majority of evolution deniers due to poor education, fortunately scientific decisions are not made in the Knesset (or the American Senate or the Russian Duma)
The problem is that this is not a small group of holocaust deniers, it is quite a large group and even includes many scientists who claim this.
This is the problem that today it has become very popular to deny evolution and even I think that any child you ask with a very high probability will tell you that the one who is responsible for the fact that we live is a planning creator and even a true person would read the book of holocaust deniers. Independent and curious
Truth:
If you really want truth, you don't need to send us to do such "homework".
Suppose someone were to send you a book by a holocaust denier and say to you: "Are you claiming that there was a holocaust? I will believe you only if you read this book and tell me what is true in it and what is not."
Now - you know a lot of things that are conclusive evidence that there was a holocaust. Are you really going to read this book cover to cover? Not a chance! In the best case - if you really care about that idiot who chose to claim that there was no holocaust, look for one central claim in the book - a claim that shows that the writer - either did not know what he was talking about - or lied - and you will see that it is not true.
This is also how science works in general: one prediction that doesn't come true is enough to disprove a scientific theory and when the theory has been disproved, you don't try to save it by pointing out the correct things it said - you simply take these things and use them to build the correct theory.
Therefore you must understand why I have no desire to comply with your request.
but what? I am willing to do one favor for you because it may be that you really do not know and are not "just another evolution denier" (I am not sure that this is the case, because it is really difficult to be an evolution denier in the face of the facts known today and it is very difficult to succeed in not encountering these facts, but I still give you the benefit of the doubt ).
There is no reason to go to Darwin and ask whether - based on the information he had - he was justified in drawing the conclusions he did.
He did draw his conclusions based on certain information, but what interests us is not whether Darwin drew his conclusions in a completely well-founded manner! What interests us is to know if the theory of evolution is correct and to check this we do not need to limit ourselves to Darwin's knowledge and we are allowed to rely on what science has found since then!
When you do this - there is no escaping the conclusion that the theory of evolution (which Darwin deduced from relatively few facts) also fits wonderfully with the millions of facts that have been discovered since then, while the creation theories of all kinds - including the one presented in the article you linked to - are refuted by many of the indisputable facts.
The strongest evidence for the correctness of the theory of evolution (and to deal with the specific article you mentioned - for the existence of a common origin for different species) comes today from the field of genetic research.
I will give you now - two links with very strong evidence in this area.
The first is an article published here in Biden (and this fact makes it very difficult for me not to attribute to you "just denial"), which shows a way in which the existence of a common origin for a cow, sheep, pig, horse, dog, human, chimpanzee, rhesus monkey, rat, rabbit is seen , and a kangaroo.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/
The method used in the above experiment is suitable for testing the common origin of each group of species.
The second is a link to an excerpt from a lecture given to an audience (which has also been cited many times in the comments on this site) that presents one decisive piece of evidence for the common origin of chimpanzees and humans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Hello, I have an article by an Orthodox Jew that really interested me, this article deals with evolution but from a religious Jewish point of view and I want to know the truth and if there are mistakes in this article and in his words about evolution but I only ask for real answers with proofs and links and that are written with an unbiased eye and if possible also To point out things that the rabbi is indeed right in his words and not just wrong, because that's the only way to get to the point of truth, and that's what I've been looking for for a long time http://www.hydepark.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=2656991&forum_id=4142
Evolution according to Judaism
someone:
I see that you have decided to go back and act like a human being and I congratulate you for that.
I guess you saw that in the debate between you and me - I was the one who was right and Camila confirmed that what I said exactly described her intentions.
In other words - you had the opportunity to understand what was happening much earlier but you chose not to because both Camila and I carry the dubious title in your eyes - of "evolutionists".
I allow myself to say that in my opinion you never believed that Camilla thought that man did not evolve from a type of ape (because of the two of you - she is the one who has defended evolution so far and you are the one who attacked it) and I suggest that you go back and ask yourself why you tried to create a presentation as if that is what you think she thinks
In my opinion, this is a pure war.
That's why I also think that your advice to Camila regarding changing the wording will not contribute to the quality of her explanation because those who want to understand the explanations can also understand them in the wording she used.
What your advice can help with is postponing the confrontation with people like you - who attack the defenders of evolution because they cannot make any claim against evolution itself.
Kamila, I'm sorry if you were offended by my words, that really wasn't the intention, I didn't "blame you", certainly not "with malicious intent" (how did you come up with that!? :-)) All in all, I wanted to emphasize a point that I saw as problematic in your explanation that could mislead the other party ( That's why I said wrong and misleading).
I didn't mean to turn this comment into a big drama, I just see a lot of evolutionists repeating this claim in the same wording as yours and I think it is appropriate to explain it in a different way as I wrote before.
So sorry if you were offended.
Oops... I meant Yair's response 49 of course...
Michael, thank you for showing understanding and adding your short and clear explanations.
Yair (50)
You misunderstood (again). The problem is not in the word "amazing" at all, if this is the conclusion you reached then you really have a flaw in your reading comprehension. When you state that someone made a gross mistake, it is very difficult not to interpret it as a statement that undermines the credibility/professionalism of that person. Sometimes this is justified, sometimes really stupid claims are made whose meaning is clear and then there is no problem denouncing that person as someone who does not know/understand what he is talking about, for example if I were to write that this case proves the existence of the spaghetti monster and collapses the theory of evolution because according to the followers of evolution a process It doesn't allow for regression to a more primitive form, so it would be fair to say I made a stunning mistake. In this case, even if you understood what I said differently (and I believe you did) there is absolutely no reason to choose this illogical interpretation and there is absolutely no reason to portray me as if I said something nonsense. Maybe that's not what you meant (not that it matters because you yourself claimed: "No writer in natural language has the right to interpret the texts he writes") but it's hard not to interpret it that way (I did a controlled experiment with two readers who got the impression from me that the words were written about a stranger and both believed that it was a critical comment with a distinctly negative connotation). Intolerance and humor are the result of your critical comment that has a negative connotation, so those who want to avoid such answers should double check what they are writing.
By the way, I can also relate to the depth of the hurt caused by my humorless answers, it's not easy, but I won't do it because I don't tend to explain to people I don't know what they feel and that's for the simple reason that... I don't know them (even after reading two and a half of their responses), It would just seem arrogant and stupid to me if I did such a thing 😉
Year:
But as Kamila answered you - the sentence only talks about the form and not about the other features (pass form monkey-like father to the mirror human).
It is not implied in two ways, but even if it was implied in two ways when one side is logical and correct and the other is "amazing in its error" - etiquette would require assuming that the writer's intention is the logical and correct side and at most there would be room for a question about the wording and not for casting doubt on the seriousness of the writer
Machal, Camila, Jose,
From Camila's answers to me, I understood that she was very hurt by the word "amazing". This word expressed my surprise at her words and I had no intention of offending, and I apologize to her.
Her answers to me were mainly characterized by intolerance and lack of humor.
Basically, the sentence I copied from 23 is incorrect. I repeat it here in a small expansion of the quote: "In light of what we know from the framework of evolution, we strengthen the impression that the transition from an ape-like father form to a human appearance is probably much easier and simpler than we thought"
As a reminder, no natural language writer has interpretation rights over the texts he writes. It is possible that what I understand from this sentence was not the author's intention, as she described it in 39. This sentence is a general statement about the processes of evolution, at least in one of its possible implications. The entire first part of the sentence contains a series of general statements. As such it is not true.
In order to make peace at home on the science website, we will summarize the issue as follows:
Everyone is beautiful, everyone is smart, but only one wins (Julia)...
This strong human daughter named Julia is the most human person that can be, she fought against all odds, she learned a lot of new things, she tried with all her might to adapt to a wild and inhuman environment that calls itself "humans", there is more chance that the stage Next in our evolution is to become Julia because she is human unlike us humans who brutally eat each other for a little money and a little respect.
Cheers to Julia
Year:
As one of the readers who judged for themselves - I completely agree with the answers Kamila gave you.
Someone (40)
I already agreed with you that I could write it down in a way that would be clearer even for people who understand less. It was also clarified that those who do know a little about the subject should have understood what I meant and that there is no problem with the wording.
Whether you belong to the first type or the second type, it would have been nice if you had limited your response (24) to a clarifying question and not added the sentence: "Perhaps here you are actually the one who is wrong and misleading?" who attributes to me some general malicious intention of misleading the public. If you don't understand the subject anyway, you had no reason to attribute such an intention to me, and if you do understand the subject and understood my original intention and just wanted to point out that there are those who may not understand it correctly, then you could have simply worded it that way without attributing any malicious intent to me.
Yair (44)
I can be right, I can be smart, but sometimes it's most important for me to just be honest with the facts. In my response to you, I did not try to present wisdom, but the simple fact (and each reader can judge for himself) that you quoted a sentence I wrote, attributed to it a meaning that is not found in it (probably due to your misinterpretation) a meaning that is an "incredible mistake" as you say, and then attributes your mistake to me... There is nothing here Nothing to do with wisdom.
Camila, 39,
Usually you write wisely, not this time.
someone
The dogs and the wolves are not like the man and the monkey, in terms of genetic variation.
The dogs are a subspecies of the common wolf (see Wikipedia).
Man is not a subspecies of monkey.
In other words, the dogs - which are domesticated animals - are not much different (genetically) from the wolves of today.
Similar to the pig for example, the pig is actually a captive wild boar.
According to the stories I've heard, if you release the (domesticated) pig into the wild, within a few weeks it turns into a wild pig both in its form and its behavior.
I assume that if the dogs return to breeding in the wild, and continue to do so, then after a short period it will be possible to recognize ancient appearance and 'patterns' that begin to appear again in them (starting to resemble wolves more).
Good.
In the case of the dogs and the wolves - it is indeed the wolves of our time and read some of Assaf Rosenthal's articles on the subject.
Camila, I think that saying in a blanket way that man did not evolve from monkeys is indeed misleading and confusing, especially when you say it to people who do not understand the field. If you want to be so precise, you can say that humans evolved from ancient apes so that there is no room for doubt, but to say categorically that we did not evolve from apes is a much less correct answer (even if you understand what is meant).
In any case, just as when it is said that dogs evolved from wolves, no one feels the need to explain that they are not modern-day wolves, so it seems to me quite clear that when people talk about humans evolving from monkeys, it is clear that they are referring to some ancient monkey and not to the monkeys found in zoos today.
From too many assumptions about what people think and don't think, an answer is obtained that is much less correct and much more confusing than the direct and true answer.
PS - I'm not petty, and I certainly didn't come here to fight with anyone (unlike some other people here who seem to make every possible effort to start fights as if it's some kind of hobby of theirs)
Yair (37)
I specifically wrote about the appearance and not about any other feature that was not given information about in the article. I did not claim nor did I try to claim that one generation is enough to literally transform a person into a monkey-like creature in all its biochemical, physiological, cognitive, etc. components.
The only thing that can amaze you is your lack of reading comprehension and the fact that you jumped to attribute something to me that I did not write at all. In such a case, if there was any doubt as to what I meant, a polite person would draw attention to the "problematic" sentence and ask for clarification. You chose to blame me for your inability to understand simple things I wrote, isn't it a shame to go hummus?
someone,
Michael understood very well what was meant and I think that anyone who has some familiarity with the subject and with the fairly common mistake of ignorant people and those who lack understanding of the idea of evolution, who are mistaken in thinking that man evolved from the monkey they saw last week at the zoo, would have understood the meaning of what I wrote. So yes, I could write it down more clearly so that even petty readers cannot compensate here. I admit, I was wrong and I apologize for wasting precious time.
By the way, in light of your accusations that I am trying to mislead the public, I am interested in what you think about the required continuation if your (mis)interpretation of my words were correct, that is, what do you think my answer would be, as someone who is known for her full support of the idea of evolution, to the question: So if not a monkey, What did man evolve from anyway? It's quite clear that I wouldn't suddenly adopt some spaghetti monster for my help, right?
Take this as a mental exercise and I think you will be able to come to the conclusion that your interpretation was not that logical (even though it is apparently derived from the plain text if you really ignore the context in which they were written and by whom they were written, just as Michael took the trouble to explain to you).
Camila, your sentence from 23
"Strengthening the impression that the transition from an ape-like father form to a human appearance is probably much easier and simpler than we thought"
Amazing in his mistake!
The woman described in the article was a human being in the full sense of the word with some unusual characteristics. Above all she was intelligent and spoke, which no ape dreams of approaching.
And the transition from an ape to a human is no coincidence that it took millions of years.
Are you not done yet? Well go on.
Walla! I see I really hit a bull's eye! Your obsession does not allow you to keep your promise!
Well, I will not join this loop. I will respond further only when you write new nonsense and not to the repetitions of your old nonsense.
keep babbling.
The one who is talking here is actually you and it is clear to everyone except you.
Like I said, you're hopeless and I'm writing the stuff for others anyway.
By the way, what happened to your promise to stop arguing with me? Can't resist? Even if you have nothing to say?!
Keep talking to yourself.
And I will continue to respond to the nonsense you write without asking your permission.
The starting point, when reading the other person's words in a matter-of-fact way and not just to find how to deal with him, should take into account what is already known about him and it seems to me that your knowledge about Camila allowed you, if you wanted, to avoid the (intentional) misinterpretation of her words.
I will continue the discussion with Camila and not with you, thanks.
Besides, someone, if it's not clear to you that Camila understands evolution dozens of times more than you do, then you're not only bending her words, but also bending yourself.
someone:
I dare you to bend.
When they say "the monkey" they mean a specific type of monkey and not any animal that could be classified as a monkey.
Man did not evolve from any of the apes that exist today.
The following quote is taken from Camila's response:
"Man did not evolve from the dog as man did not evolve from the monkey"
So how dare you claim that I am "bending her words"?
I wrote down exactly what she said!
someone:
Indeed, the common ancestor of us and the chimpanzee was a monkey.
Basically - we and the monkeys that exist today had a lot of common ancestors.
The earliest of them were probably one type of bacteria or another.
However, usually when you use the phrase "ancestor" of two types of animals you mean the later of them and in the case of chimpanzees and us, it really was an ape.
Camila did not claim otherwise and trying to bend her words to stick to her a claim that the common ancestor of us and chimpanzees was not a monkey is simply ridiculous.
The last Camila, according to everything I know, the common ancestor between us and the chimpanzees was a monkey in the full sense of the word, and if you saw him today in the zoo you yourself would classify him without any hesitation as a monkey.
So why do you claim that man did not evolve from ape? Maybe here you are the one who is wrong and misleading?
Chen (21)
Without going into the details that, as mentioned, are not available to us at the moment, such as what the exact characteristics of the skull are and which primate it shows the most resemblance to, I think what is amazing in this case is that within just one generation, a human descendant shows an impressive resemblance to an ape-like creature. The implications of such an event in the light of what we know from the framework of evolution reinforce the impression that the transition from an ape-like ancestor to a human appearance is probably much easier and simpler than we thought. Note, it is not the very proposition that humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor (this is derived from all the other many evidences that exist) that is the main thing demonstrated by the case of Julia Pastrana, but the small genetic distance (probably a single mutation) that is required to go from one form to another.
If you want to read an article that deals with the subject (at the genetic level) and mentions Julia's case, you can do so here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694973/
contract (19)
You can say whatever nonsense you want but in the absence of observations and quantification to support what you are saying then it will not be surprising that what you are saying is nonsense.
Man did not evolve from the dog as man did not evolve from the monkey, man, monkey and dog have common ancestors. Statements of the first type are gross errors that have already been explained here more than once and it would be nice if people like you would stop distorting the conclusions drawn from the existence of evolution. Since this distinction is unlikely to be new to you why do you insist on spreading such a basic lie?
Similarity can have almost any value therefore even though it can be said that objects A, B and C are similar to each other it is absolutely possible that A and B are more similar to each other than A and C or B and C . Similarity can be quantified and then the "distance" can be compared, for example between genetic sequences, or anatomical-morphological similarity. Quantitatively, humans and monkeys show more similarity than between them and dogs. If you can show me an example of a human that resembles a dog more than it resembles other humans or monkeys (in terms of skeletal structure, genetic load, behavior, organ structure/arrangement/activity, etc.) then we will have something to start talking about. By the way, the particular similarity that does exist between humans and dogs is another measurable observation that confirms the theory of evolution.
Your democratic approach ("I claim that everything is in the eye of the beholder") is very nice, but science doesn't work like that and it's a good thing. The world cannot be both flat and round, the universe cannot be both 6000 years old and 14 billion years old and as with many other things it really doesn't matter what different people think about the reality around us, there is a clear way to differentiate between a reliable and elegant description of The reality and the egg-shelling of the kind that most people utter all the time without shame while using technology developed using the same scientific method that, among other things, also points to the theory of evolution as the only thing that gives some kind of explanation and meaning to a wide variety of phenomena that we see around us. The fact that you have a vague reluctance at the amazing similarity between humans and monkeys (which far exceeds the similarity between humans and dogs) and from the conclusion required by the process of evolution that this similarity requires the existence of a common ancestor, is your problem, this is clearly not a legitimate alternative opinion and this is for two reasons Main points: a. You deny the amazing facts that support the theory of evolution. B. You offer no alternative that even comes close to giving any explanation for all these phenomena.
You wrote: "...but from a purely scientific point of view it's just a theory."
Well what? Now we have regressed to the difference between the popular use of the word theory and the scientific meaning of the word theory? Again, do you seriously want to claim that you are not aware of the difference between the two? come on…
I did not set up any thought experiment,
I only asked that if we were to investigate the skull, what conclusions would we reach?
Perhaps she was suitable in characteristics for the Neadral man? Maybe for Homo erectus? Maybe Australopithecus ericanus? Maybe a gorilla? Maybe a chimpanzee?
The goal is a scientific investigation, in my opinion this can teach us more about genetic phenomena and mutations, which distinguish man from ape.. Beyond that, the question is simply intriguing to me, based on what exactly would it be similar to a gorilla?
How do I know they didn't investigate her? After all, they wrote in the article that they stuffed her..
The contract in the stars:
I see you made sure not to read my words.
The key to the whole thing is that completely different modes of identifying similarity lead to the exact same developmental tree.
For this purpose, I specifically brought the link to the article on the science website - a link that I will repeat again for your sake:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/
You will see there how the evolutionary trees obtained from the analysis of the different proteins using an objective index of similarity are all... the same tree.
But I know it won't help, because I've already said it, and if it would have helped, you would have spoken differently.
The Last Camilla (6)
You write: What other explanation do you offer for such a similarity? Why, for example, is the resemblance to a monkey and not to a snake or a rabbit or a bacterium or a dinosaur?
I can equally say that man evolved from the dog otherwise how do you explain the fact that there are people in the world with a face that resembles a dog? Moreover, the dogs they raise in most cases are similar to them.
I claim that everything is in the eye of the beholder, you see this woman who resembles a monkey and therefore claim that we probably evolved from the monkey, theoretically this could fit Darwin's theory of evolution with holes but from a purely scientific point of view it is only a theory.
From a theoretical point of view, the Lemma? G-d that you spoke of is the force that ignited the Big Bang, but this is only a theory, so we cannot say that a match is an evolution of the Lemma? G-d...
Someone (11)
Although Michael has already answered you, I would like to try a different approach for a moment: what does a joint planner mean? That is, can you give me some kind of script that would give some kind of explanation for the huge variety of species of organisms in nature and also for the amazing similarity that exists in those organisms at the genetic/biochemical/physiological/behavioral/anatomical level and the amazing correspondence between this similarity at the skeletal level and between the fossil findings and the geological history of the earth? Saying "joint planner" doesn't really explain all of this in terms of mechanism. I'll try to direct you: when do you think the same designer you suggest started producing his products? Does he still design/produce new products? Did he plan every detail? Or just any gender? Or just the first organism? What is the creation mechanism that the designer uses? What are the principles on the basis of which he designs his creatures? (Functionality? Aesthetics? Efficiency?)
I would love to read a little about your views on the matter.
Chen (7,8)
I'm not sure I understand what you asked/stated in your thought experiment...
In this case it seems to me that it is essential to check the skull itself, don't you think so?
What we conclude from this test depends on the characteristics of the skull (which I do not have). You might find that the skull is identical to the skull of a gorilla and you might find that despite the general similarity to the skull of a gorilla, there are features in it that are unique to the skull of a modern human. It is not so clear to me what the purpose of the hypothetical question you asked is when you know that the key to answering it is not available at the moment... but of course it could be that I simply did not understand you. Could you rephrase your question?
The answer - I don't know, apparently the skull was not studied.
Abi, Chen asked a simple question and you took it in completely different directions that are not at all related to the essence of the question asked.
Chen asked whether the skull structure of this woman is more suitable in its characteristics to the skull structure of a human or a monkey.
simple question.
Abby, I agree with you, but that's not the point.
Very intriguing, and also very important to know which skull structure we would associate Julia with.
I am not claiming that if we were to classify it as a non-human skull structure we would experience failure, absolutely not.
Yotzemach, maybe you like to delude yourself in the matter of science. But this is popular science. If you want real science, go to university
someone:
It's amazing how many times you have to repeat the same things.
I'm not talking about the ridiculousness of the phrase "shared similarity" which implies that there may be a shared similarity, but about the disregard that the followers of God are willing to ignore all knowledge and logic.
In science we look for explanations and explanations - by their very definition - explain the complex through the simple and not the other way around.
A creator, therefore, is not an explanation for anything because it is an attempt to explain the world in whose existence we are present every moment through something complex and incomprehensible that we never encounter.
But even if we assume the existence of your spaghetti monster - why did it have to create creatures that were destroyed and those that are in the process of being destroyed today?
Why did she have to create creatures that destroy other creatures?
Why did she have to create creatures with flawed design such as creatures with eyes that cannot see or wings that cannot fly?
Why did she have to develop leg remains in certain snakes and whales?
Why did she have to leave to the birds a silenced mechanism of making two?
Why did she have to create a human being by, among other things, the pertachy joining of two monkey chromosomes (Really Pertachi - one that leaves extra telomeres in the middle of the chromosome and equips it with two centromeres, one of which is neutralized )?
And most of all - why on earth did she have to create the unlikely phenomenon of imagination described in the following article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/
Unlike that almighty being that is revealed to us in nature as a perfect Lumiel, the mindless evolution had no other option!
All these phenomena are well explained by the theory of common origin and are in opposition to the common creator hypothesis.
But it is clear that just as the facts have not confused you so far - you will not let them confuse you in the future either.
Camila-why does a common similarity indicate a common origin more than a common planner?
Roy:
Exciting as ever.
withering:
I decided to memorize the phrase "Why? digestion". It could probably be of use to me here and there.
Hen, the chance that this particular skull will be found near a cave is zero. Only one out of millions of skulls in general is preserved over time and decomposes, so if the majority of the population is normal and individual individuals in it look like monkeys, the chance that exactly one of these individuals will be preserved is slim. Therefore it is likely that skulls from certain periods represent the people of that time.
the intent
that if I found her skull near some cave,
What conclusions would I reach?
withering
If I analyzed the structure of Julia's skull, would I conclude that it was human?
contract (5)
How does a private case that supports and integrates perfectly into the general theory seem to you to be something that disrupts the theory...? It is not clear. The idea that man and ape have a common ancestor is a derivative of the theory of evolution, not the foundation upon which the theory rests. The case described in the article illustrates how small the (genetic) distance is between the external appearance of a person and the external appearance of a monkey, which confirms the possibility of transitioning between the two forms in an even easier way than many people would like to think. If you add to this a long process of many generations and the accumulation of mutations and the combination of the findings collected from the different periods, everything points to confirmation of the theory of evolution. What other explanation do you offer for such a similarity? Why, for example, is the resemblance to a monkey and not to a snake or a rabbit or a bacterium or a dinosaur? Why is there such a good match with what is expected to be according to the theory of evolution that explains well why the expected sacrifice should be to a monkey and not to something else? This is exactly the heart of the matter, can someone come and give a more successful explanation that fits all the other observations and testimonies. I would love to hear another proposal from you that is not as idiotic and boring as the "theory" of the why? digestion.
Maybe she is not Darwin's missing link? Maybe there have always been humans with strange mutations that made us think based on bones we found that we evolved from the monkey? In my opinion, this actually undermines the theory of human evolution, what do you think? I don't understand much about evolution, but it disrupts the theory a bit, doesn't it?
Yotzemach and Assaf, the article was taken from Roy's blog. I guess it was adapted here, but it was originally written for the blog I think, so your guess is pretty accurate..
An amazing and sensitive article that fits very well in a scientific newspaper. We deserve it too!
I liked reading it is interesting and the writing is excellent.
I think paragraph 1 to 7 deserve to be called "excellent writing" and the rest "fantastic writing". And both parts are sewn together! on a scientific website.
And something else for the writer 1
Continue to sit at home and criticize.
It's healthy for the soul 🙂
The whole story begins in paragraph 7
Paragraph 1 to 7 is more worthy of a "blog" description than writing on a scientific website.