An international conference currently taking place in Qatar is discussing whether endangered species should be saved at all costs
These days is held in Doha (K
At the conference, among other things, proposals to ban the trade (and fishing) of tuna (bluefin), the ban on trade in polar bear skins, a ban on fishing and trade in sharks, a ban on harvesting corals and other bans and restrictions, on the other hand, a request from Tanzania and Zambia to allow the sale of elephant tusks is up for discussion (Ivory), in discussions that will approve or ban trade, discussions in which species will be declared endangered, different (and different) political and financial factors are involved, factors that do not always consider the good of nature and the environment, before them the needs of conservation and preservation must be presented in a way that they will understand... in an economic aspect!
Before local and international organizations the question sometimes arises, when is a species declared at risk, what is the level of risk, when is a species declared extinct? When do you stop diverting budgets to preserve or save a species? The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does not have fixed and clear procedures and in most cases decisions are based on local reports.
The well-known example of a species that has become extinct in our time (almost) is the dodo chicken, hence the common phrase used by conservationists who refer to a species that has no chance of survival - "dead like his uncle".
Before the conference, names and numbers are presented and they must decide and rule, one of the names (species) mentioned in the conference is the imperial newt (Persian) Neurergus kaiseri, of which, according to the estimate, only a few remain in an area of about 10 square kilometers, which is threatened because it is collected for sale as a "pet". His place of residence in Persia makes it difficult to collect and receive real data.
Another species that "created a problem" is the ivory-billed woodpecker (America). After being declared extinct for two decades, news of sightings of the bird appeared...? In our country, the tiger was considered extinct until 1970, when it turned out that a number of individuals live in the wild.
So how and when is a species declared extinct? How do you classify the chances of a species surviving and its position in the risk index? A group of Australian researchers are trying to establish standards that will be a standard for the above determinations, where there are no regulations that will be a guide for determining the status of a biological species, strict regulations that will be accepted by the World Conservation Organization, (IUCN) and will help to update the "red list" of endangered species, Because, hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in the preservation and conservation of species in the wild, sometimes there is an activity of returning species, - such as the activities of restoring the rams, the wildebeests, the elk, the ostriches and others with us, activities that cost a lot and there is not always a chance of success, that is, even a high financial investment does not guarantee success in conservation and maintaining an endangered species or success in returning a species to the wild.
We will once again mention the tigers, the gazelles, the Persians, the sand cats and others, species that, despite conservation and recovery attempts, are disappearing from the Israeli landscape.
Australian researchers led by Tracy Rout from the University of Melbourne published a position paper in Conservation Biology. In the paper, the researchers claim that with the help of a "risk index" it will be possible to save expenses in trying to preserve a species without a chance, expenses that will be directed to preserving a species whose chances of survival are higher. In other words, the "risk index" will show when the time has come to give up and stop conservation attempts, the Dodo is used as a model since (to the researchers) it is clear that even if there is a chance to bring the Dodo back, (with the help of genetic replication), the expenses do not justify the effort and must be directed to conservation existing species.
Declaring a species extinct means that: there will be no more expenses for its preservation, but what if after declaring it extinct it turns out that... the species exists? The declaration and cessation of protection will give the final "push" to its extinction, many species have been declared extinct and then "rediscovered", what is known as the "Lazarus species" Lazarus taxon after the event in which Jesus brought Lazarus back to life - such as the ivory-billed woodpecker in America, Tiger in us and others.
The international conservation organization declares a species extinct when "there is no doubt that the last individual has died", a definition that is not clear since there were cases in which there was a report of "the death of the last individual", a report that turned out to be erroneous, a mistake that could cause the cessation of conservation efforts and as a result... extinction! A mistake caused by an "arbitrary announcement".
The Australian researchers developed a model that takes into account sightings (of an endangered species), the number of successful sightings, as well as barren sightings and the time elapsed since the last (fertile) sighting. Data that will be used to calculate the probability of the existence of the species, a calculation that will be integrated into the cost of continued conservation, against its termination and against the chances of success. The model presented as mathematical data gives a clear picture to those who need to decide. That is: if until today the "red list" was based on statements, the researchers ask for it to be based on quantities, if until today "emotions" were involved, the researchers suggest relying only on numbers.
The proposed approach indicates a growing trend among conservationists, a "cold" approach that measures the data with clear numbers and financial considerations of worthwhile and not worthwhile, a "financial" approach that will be clearer for (budgetary) decision makers, as well as for the general public who will be able to understand why budgets are diverted to preserve a certain species,
In a (human) world where the most significant factor, the most understandable to the majority of the population, the factor that most influences decision makers is... money, in the "financial" world it is necessary to use mathematical concepts, as we have already said in the past that the conservation and preservation of nature has an economic value and should be presented as such!
71 תגובות
One should not focus on conserving species, but on conserving the habitats that support them. The whole species conservation approach may be effective for advocacy (especially if the species is "cute" and liked by the public like a panda) but in practice, in my opinion, protection of habitats from fragmentation and loss is much more important. There are several fundamental causes of biodiversity loss and these are:
A. Loss and fragmentation of habitats.
B. Biological invasions - invasive species.
third. Climate change
d. Overexploitation (hunting/fishing/gathering, etc.)
I may have forgotten a few but these are the main ones. Instead of trying to invest the funds in one species or another, it is advisable to invest them in preventing these factors or reducing them.
Well, I'm done with you too. You keep evading an answer. Now you blame the hostility?
On the day you want to discuss the truth without platitudes and evasions and without playing it an enlightened mysterious who knows what the others don't know but is not ready to enrich them with the gift of knowledge, we will talk.
In the meantime, good health.
Just stop commenting on Hazi, the outrage of his words in a science fiction book or movie (P.S. Maybe he actually saw the movie from about a decade ago "The Mission to Mars". This motif appears towards the end.) In any case, you will soon have two days of rest from comments. Due to the upgrade of the site, the comment mechanism will be closed, so that there is no situation where comments will be lost due to the upgrade and we will be accused of censorship.
Noam:
This bra just can't shut up.
He has nothing to say but he constantly demonstrates it in more and more ways.
He does not pay attention to what he is told and my father, unfortunately, does not block him.
I stopped responding to him because I consider it a waste of time.
I think you should also move on to more important things.
Let's treat his words simply as another advertisement that appears on the page (between us - that's exactly what they are - only that it's an advertisement for nothing).
Noam,
I show whoever wants to see…
Hezi,
Hypocrisy and hypocrisy.
If you don't want to convince anyone - then why are you publishing your musings?
To show everyone how smart you are?
pleasantness,
I keep saying,
I have no interest in convincing.
They will eat if they want, if they don't want they won't eat...
Hezi,
You prove time after time a lack of knowledge and lack of understanding in the theory of evolution. Despite your lack of understanding, you try by all means to refute it, but what is not understood cannot be refuted!
You can tell everyone until tomorrow or until at all how you discovered the truth ("with much effort"), and how many years it took you, and you are still a complete ignorant in everything related to the theory of evolution. I say this not to bash, but as a simple and clear fact for all.
You join many others, that evolution is a serious threat to their faith and worldview, but unfortunately for you, there is no way to stop the pursuit of truth and the deepening of human knowledge. Many more powerful than you have tried to stop the process and failed, and no one will succeed. Human curiosity always overcomes the primitive forces of darkness of all kinds and religions, and thanks to this humanity has come this far.
pleasantness,
Evolution definitely has a definite direction (not random evolution...).
The direction of rational evolution:
To create life and new forms of life wherever possible...
Rah,
As you see the hostility here,
I still haven't found real partners to share them with.
meanwhile looking at life,
and drawing correct conclusions,
While updating these conclusions when necessary...
Everything I wrote here stems from that.
Hey, you're still evasive. Who asked you about evolution? Who asked you about what is wrong?
I asked you about the sources of information and evidence for what you wrote in your response on 45.
Do you only conclude all this in the negative way from the fact that evolution is wrong?
Hezi,
Evolution has no definite direction, and no premeditated planning. Sometimes, due to environmental constraints, there are also setbacks, and your case indeed illustrates this.
There is no reason for you to feel uncomfortable with your withdrawal, and even to convince yourself that it is actually progress. Self-deception in your case can certainly lend itself to you, especially if it makes you emphasize better, so I wouldn't rule it out outright.
As the constraints of the environment caused you to seriously retreat in understanding, so it is to be hoped that further changes will move you in the right direction - there is no reason to despair.
Another option, of course, is to simply study, and not wait for environmental constraints - but this is your choice only.
Avi,
Right now it sounds like science fiction.
All that is needed for it to become real science,
Visible life in space (there is already a humble beginning),
And especially they discovered a rational life.
The space explorers are currently making great efforts in this direction, with a deep belief that they will succeed in this...
To my heart, welcome to the club. A lot of people don't like Darwin's theory, but steam is not a scientific way to disprove a theory that works and has not been disproved to date.
However, your sci-fi story is interesting, maybe you could thicken the plot a bit and publish? There is a demand for good science fiction stories.
Rah,
Like you and the other "scientists"
I was raised on "random evolution" and believed in it.
Out of observation and wondering, I began to doubt the truth of Darwin's theory.
It started with the thought that it is impossible for an egg to be created "randomly" that a hen would have to incubate for 21 days in order for the egg to develop into a chicken again.
It is even more unlikely that there will be an even more absurd "random" reincarnation: egg, caterpillar, pupa and butterfly.
From this doubt in Darwin's theory,
I began to search for the truth, knowing that the evolution of life was a true fact. But there is no way she did it "on her own".
It took me many years to come to conclusions (and verify them).
I am aware that members here have a problem digesting these conclusions. It will take time.
What is important: not to continue self-deception...
Hey, you're just evasive. I will ask you again, on what basis do you determine the 4 determinations in message 45. Please enlighten us, what are the wonderful sources of information that are only at your disposal?
Rah,
I didn't claim there was a connection.
That's the point.
As you have no evidence for my question...
Hezi, what is the connection between your answer in 48 and what I asked in 46? When did you hear me claim that there is or is not God?
Shahar, the answer to the question why is very simple and already known to the babies of Beit Raban - like this.
Host of the Universe:
I did not forget what the article was about and unlike you - I also did not forget that there are other things in the world.
One of these things is the attempt of all kinds of delusional people to sell their wares at every opportunity and the other is that attacking others for no reason is a stupid act.
Whoever thinks he is guiding someone here will be restored.
It seems to me that Rothschild and Hazi are not talking about the same thing at all. Rothschild talks about the possibility or impossibility that some inferior life form survived a violent journey through space to reach Earth while Hazi talks about a species of aliens who decided that the Earth was their own kind of private zoo and filled it with "prepared" animals.
Both of them together forgot what the above article was about: how to decide on saving extinct species of animals.
Regarding the article - there was a side note that it is not worth reconstructing the uncle from his DNA because of the financial cost. At such a high financial cost, several other species can be saved. Whereas I say that Dr. Assaf Rosenthal never studied mass communication. Dodo lived after he was dead, this is exactly the thing that will shed enormous light on the subject, children will buy fur dolls of Dodo, celebrities will take pictures with him, donations will flow like water, and the final output of establishing Dodo to life will be enormous.
Dawn:
Of course you won't be for the question "why?" Answer: There is a hidden assumption in this question that is wrong - the assumption that there is a purpose to all of this, when there is not.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/פלוריום_אינטרוגטיונום
Stupid ego wars who knows better when in fact no one here really knows.
Anyone who claims otherwise is simply arrogant.
The more we know, the bigger and more difficult questions arise.
Even when humans conquer matter and learn to produce people, extend the life span of a single person and even teleportation - there will still be no answer to the question:
Why?
You can be calm,
Already started to block…
On what basis are they still allowing my chest to confuse the brain here instead of blocking it?
Rah,
On what basis do you claim there is no God?
Rah,
What do you mean "based on what"?
Based on the fact that Hazi knows the truth - what is not clear?
(Not only does he know the truth, he is also kind enough to bring us the truth as well)
Hazy, and on what basis does his honor so decisively base these determinations?
Rah,
I repeat what I wrote before:
A- Many sources sent different species of life to the earth.
C- It is likely that there is "competition" or rivalry between these sources.
C- This is a simple explanation why there are lives that are "adapted" to prey on or eliminate certain animals and not others. Because they were specially adapted to rub from the source of their formation in space.
D- Delivery of different types of life has been done for hundreds of millions of years, in many deliveries...
Rah:
As an attempt at a close explanation of the claim, I will quote the following quote from Wikipedia:
Deinococcus is the only genus in the order Deinococcales. D. radiodurans is the type species of this genus, and the best studied member. All known members of the genus are radioresistant: D. proteolyticus, D. radiopugnans, D. radiophilus, D. grandis, D. indicus, D. frigens, D. saxicola, D. marmoris, D. deserti[4], D. geothermalis and D. murrayi; the latter two are also thermophilic.[5]
M. I did not understand what you mean by: "There are mutant strains of it but there are no other species that are not mutant strains of itself."
Hazy, you're right, the fact that Deinococcus is similar to the other bacteria means that either they all came from space or they all didn't. So now let's talk about logic. Explain to me what the evidence is for huge ships in the style of Noah's Ark containing hundreds of millions of species of bacteria, plants, fungi and probably also viruses including all marine bacteria and including those that are extinct - trilobites, dinosaurs and the devil knows what else. Each species must have a reproductive nucleus large enough to allow its reproduction. And all of these arrived and are arriving even now because today there is a development of new species, see for example HIV or H1N1. And we urbanites fail to see all this commotion.
logic?
Hezi is a decisive proof of the well-known theorem:
Ignorant and mindless people don't die, they just change...
Rah:
There are mutant strains of it but there are no other species that are not mutant strains of itself.
Even if it is subject to mutations under certain conditions (which are not necessarily common) then its mutation rate is much slower than that of other creatures.
What I'm trying to say is not specifically related to him but to the very idea of panspermia.
Life appeared on Earth almost 4 billion years ago.
Since then the life on it has diversified immeasurably but the super resistant species of bacteria are still few and different from each other. In my opinion, the reason for this is that the mutation repair mechanism of the super resistant bacteria causes them to "freeze on the yeast".
I appreciate, for example, that it is not possible to create a mutation in them that would allow them to continue living and at the same time lose their durability.
Of course, these are only speculations, but they seem very convincing to me, and I don't think that the data you presented contradicts them or reduces their explanation.
Chest:
Slogans and platitudes will not convince anyone.
FYI: In Darwin's time, they didn't know about mutations and didn't know DNA at all
Rah,
There is a logical fallacy in your claim.
that it is the same as the other germs,
is not evidence that all germs did not come from space...
What's more, this is evidence that the belief in mutations that created new species does not have the basis it had in Darwin's time...
As I mentioned above, the bacterium's DNA fragment repair system is extremely impressive, but it turns out that the point mutation repair systems of replacement, loss or addition are completely standard and similar to other bacteria. Treat this bacterium with mutagenic substances such as EMS or mitomycin C and you will get mutants with the same frequency as you would get in E . coli. See for example in the article: http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/8/2437
So it is by definition incorrect that there are no mutant varieties of it and it is an evolutionary dead end.
The hypothesis that came up in the past that this bacterium came from space falls apart since most of its genes are similar to those of other bacteria and it is easy to place it in the evolutionary tree next to the actinomycetes, so it is unlikely that it actually came from space.
http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/strandwi_phil/phylogenetic_tree.htm
By the way, the response I pointed to in response 29 is taken from an article that discusses exactly the bacteria brought up here as an example.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/on-bacteria-and-radiation-0412073
It is interesting to read about this bacterium on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans
Among other things, it says there:
Deinococcus radiodurans has a unique quality in which it can repair both single and double stranded DNA. When a mutation is apparent to the cell it brings it into a compartmental ring like structure where the DNA is repaired and then is able to fuse the nucleoids from the outside of the compartment with the damaged DNA.
I did not ask how it is that there is no other such cell, but how it is that no other species has evolved from it.
In my opinion it is precisely because of the resistance of the genome to mutations.
I also appreciate that this kind of resistance is really necessary for creatures that go through a journey of billions of years in space because even in the most packed state in the world they will absorb radiation in quantities that will be difficult to repair.
This is actually the argument I was talking about in the first place - resistance to the hardships of the journey requires resistance to mutations and this in turn prevents the development of daughter species.
M. As for Deinococcus, it is resistant to double strand DNA breaks only and not to other types of mutations such as mismatch. This resistance is indeed due to a very special chromosome structure. The one who deciphered the secret of durability is Prof. Avi Minsky from Weizmann. What he found is that of the four copies of the genome you mentioned there will always be some in an open structure used for gene expression and some in a closed structure that is not expressed. In a normal cell, DNA fragments are a disaster because if there is a mixing between the segments, the number of possibilities for connection is astronomical (Assembly?). In Deinococcus, by radiation, the open genomes are destroyed like in any other cell in the world, but the bacterium's "patent" is that in the closed structure, the genomes are fixed by proteins, so even if they are broken, there is no mixing and all that needs to be done is to connect neighboring segments in a ligation process. After the splicing process is finished, the repaired genome is copied and once again there are four genomes in the cell. This is how the bacterium manages to repair ~200 double-stranded breaks! compared to other cells that die from enrichment. But note that this mechanism confers resistance only against double-stranded breaks and not point mutations of base substitution like this.
The discovery by the way was disappointing from the aspect that there was hope to maybe use its durability mechanisms for the benefit of astronauts but at the moment it seems that nothing can be done with this knowledge for their benefit.
Regarding the origin of the bacteria, if we ignore wild speculations about space and the like, the hypothesis is that it originated in very dry areas with strong solar radiation. But this is only a hypothesis.
How is it that there is no other cell like this? Obviously the conditions that led to the selection in favor of such a breed are very rare. Where are there such tremendous radiation conditions?
Rah:
The point is that during a journey of billions of years it will absorb a lot of radiation and this radiation will probably destroy it to the point that it will no longer be able to "wake up".
Note: We still don't know how to allow astronauts to survive the radiation they might encounter on their way to Mars!
I'm familiar with the radiation resistant bacterium and I assume you know that its DNA backup system is quadruple to protect against mutations.
Do you really know that his number of mutations is similar to others?
Even if it's true (and I'm sure), maybe these mutations are created in a high-radiation environment and actually - because of the radiation, and wouldn't be created under normal conditions?
How is it that there is no multicellular creature with this type of DNA system?
M. Rothschild, I'm having a hard time understanding your argument about DNA repair. First of all, it must be assumed that only a spore inside a meteor will survive because it will be relatively protected from radiation. Secondly, if it is a spore, then it does not divide, then mutations have no effect until germination, that is, germination and division, then the normal repair systems such as SOS, recombination, proof reading and others will come into action.
A beautiful example of resistance to radiation is the bacterium Radiococcus radiodurans that faces radiation inside the core of nuclear reactors even though it does not form spores and it is interesting that the percentage of mutations in it is similar to that of other bacteria in the world.
An argument against panspermia is perhaps a statistical argument of what is the chance that a meteor containing bacteria will land exactly on a planet with the right conditions for the bacteria to multiply? On the other hand, maybe we live in a world of low probability that has materialized?
In any case, until evidence of panspermia is discovered, all that is possible is to theoretically discuss the possibility.
Regarding other theories for the origin of life on Earth, I recommend looking at the interesting works of the Nobel laureate in 2009, Jack Shostak, who is able to produce and self-reproducing fatty molluscs. Maybe this is the beginning of life?
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
Ori:
As usual: no words, no content, just venom.
Evolution is just archeology with excess interpretation.
Harry Potter for academics.
With him, everything is an upside down world - fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff
incidentally,
As I have already said, there is no doubt that there has been evolution.
While I have provided several proofs for the existence of intentional evolution,
No one has produced even one proof that evolution was random...
And another consideration against panspermia is the following consideration:
In order to survive the journey (that is, to survive the most violent event that threw him off the planet of origin, the journey at temperatures close to absolute zero, the huge amounts of cosmic radiation that are absorbed over billions of years and the violent collision with the Earth) a very durable DNA is needed - that is, one that knows correct any defect in the copy.
Such DNA - even if it survives the journey - will have difficulty producing other life forms because the creation of another life form requires a mutation that will not be corrected.
I first made this argument here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/on-bacteria-and-radiation-0412073/#comment-26921
And I also added a small reservation from him in the next response I wrote in the same discussion.
This is a logical argument that joins all the others and as far as I know has never been made by anyone but me.
By the way - finding life similar to ours on another planet will still not prove anything regarding the origin of life because the direction of migration could have been the opposite (and this - even if we ignore the possibility that life was brought to the tested planet, unconsciously, by the researchers themselves)
Rah:
The information that the current Earth provides us about the conditions that led to the creation of life is not much.
There are also constraints on the conditions under which DNA can be preserved and function and these constraints dictate a set of conditions that is not much wider than what we know on the early Earth.
In any case - none of the people searching for the answer to the question of the origin of life rules out the hypothesis that they were created outside the earth (although the probability that this is what really happened is not high because it requires not only the formation of life but also the formation of extremely durable life that will survive the hardships and vicissitudes of the journey - And all this in a very short time since the creation of the universe, considering the fact that the journey itself takes billions of years)
Both of you Noam and Me Rothschild did not understand me. Obviously the question is interesting but the problem is that if panspermia is correct we will have almost no tools to investigate the creation of the first cell in the absence of knowledge of the planet of origin.
For example, describe the following scenario, a meteorite arrives that can be dated to a time earlier than the Earth and in this meteorite a spore of a bacterium is found which, according to the DNA sequence, is clearly similar to lip bacteria. This will strongly confirm panspermia because it is impossible for the bacteria to originate from the earth (after all, the meteorite predates it), so it is clear that the direction is the other way around.
From that moment it will be almost impossible to guess what the conditions are for the creation of a new cell because until we find the source star of the meteorite we will have no idea (beyond a few faint guesses) what are the conditions necessary for the creation of this first cell and therefore this question will become irrelevant until the day it is discovered Star.
Beyond that, Noam, if it is true that there is/was evolution on that planet, but in the absence of a faint knowledge of the conditions on that planet, it is not at all possible to imagine the directions of evolution. In fact, even when you know the conditions, it is very difficult to predict the progress of evolution, so it is easy, especially on some unknown planet.
But don't get me wrong here either, in my opinion panspermia is just one theory with a relatively low probability among many theories about the origin of life. What is beautiful about it is that, unlike most other theories about the origin of life on Earth, it makes a relatively simple prediction for confirmation: you will find a star that has A life resembling life is a language (at the cellular level) and you have almost complete proof of its correctness.
And if you ask, but how was life created on that planet? I'll send you to my chest, I'm sure he'll have answers.
Rah:
I don't understand how you think the question of the formation of life becomes irrelevant when the issue is how life was formed.
It's like if someone asks you how to build a transistor and you tell him "we don't build it - we bring it from China".
As I have already said several times and as Noam reiterated - the most important thing is how life was created and not exactly where.
Rah,
The question of the formation of life is relevant if panspermia is correct, just as it is relevant in Israel - there is no difference.
Wherever life originated, the question of the formation of life and its development is similar.
This is exactly what Hazi did not understand - evolution can also take place on another planet.
You didn't say right, but note that if panspermia is true, then the question of the formation of life becomes almost irrelevant until we find the planet on which life was formed, therefore it is very related to the topic.
Rah:
Where did I say that the panspermia theory is unfounded?
I didn't say that anywhere. I only said that it does not belong to the question of the formation of life.
Hezi,
Well, if these are your proofs that all species came from space, I suggest that you think deeply and see that beyond a few gross errors that you present, you actually brought very solid evidence for the existence of the evolutionary process.
I liked your section XNUMX "All cultures believed in gods, conclusion - we came from the sky" this is a classic example of drawing wrong conclusions and pseudo science in the style of "a fly without legs does not hear".
All people in all cultures also have hair on their heads, all people in all cultures laugh, all cultures had legends and songs so what does that mean? I will also tell you a secret, everyone is also sad and mourns when a dear relative dies. Perhaps the simpler explanation for belief in a higher power in all cultures is that it is simply a part of human nature like all the other things I listed?
M. Rothschild, the panspermia theory is not as far-fetched as you think. It is based on the fact that meteors have been found to carry organic materials on the one hand and on the fact that spores (of Bacillus, for example) are apparently able to endure the hardships of the journey if they are located deep within a meteor that was born, let's say, from a planet teeming with life.
Indeed this theory does not offer any explanation for the formation of the first cell but only an explanation for the appearance of the first cell on earth.
But we will probably have to be patient until we find a whole bacterium in a meteor that will show that such a journey is possible, and of course and perhaps more importantly that there is life elsewhere.
Just one point of clarification for everyone, there is no dependence between the first cell and the formation of life with Darwin's theory of evolution. The formation of life is only a small and relatively marginal issue in the theory, the fact that it is still an open question does not disprove the theory of evolution at all and the main thing, that is not what it stands for.
The debate whether the origin of the first cell is on Earth or whether it originated in space, on another planet is an evil debate. In both cases the first cell is created in space. People forget that the Earth is also in space.
Claiming the existence of an intelligent designer is as ancient and foolish as the claims that the earth is flat. An intelligent planner would not have left so many mistakes, engineering errors and just mistakes in the planning. If he was planning then he is far from being intelligent. Perhaps the title "planner in Bonnie" is more appropriate.
This is similar to people's inability to deal with an infinite universe. In order to overcome this, they "create" for themselves an infinite being that created the universe. It doesn't solve that talking and just plastering over a crack in the wall to make it look nice.
Long live Xino the savior who 70 million years ago hunted souls and buried them in volcanoes. In his death he commanded us life.
I already wrote here and I repeat:
I have no interest in convincing anyone.
I show what the truth is (it took me many years to verify it).
Those who want can eat, those who don't want can't eat...
For those who wonder about the space of a chest, it is Noah's ark, it had an inner space
Machal, don't dismiss the finisher
Rah:
I apologize for the comparison, but it is like saying that there is currently no accepted theory about the formation of the first living cell and therefore the possibility of a trip to the moon is legitimate.
There is simply no connection between the things.
Even if you find an accepted theory regarding the formation of the first living cell, the theory that it came from another source will still remain legitimate because everything they think could have happened on Earth could also have happened elsewhere.
I say again - it simply does not belong because it does not explain the beginning of life - it only offers an extension to a completely different subject which is the subject of the migration of animals from place to place (which today is only studied across the different continents and not between the stars).
Chest:
In section A you say that there are shared DNA segments between animals that have no developmental connection between them and I am asking you if the source that revealed to you that there is no developmental connection between them is also the one that revealed to you that blacks are walking around.
You have no way of knowing that there is no developmental connection between them and the shared DNA segments indicate that there is.
For section B: What exactly are semi-planned creatures? There is not a single planned creature in the world! You complain about missing links and ramble as usual. I claim to have created your ancestors myself. I actually created your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather.
If you want to disprove my argument with the method you are trying to disprove evolution - you must show me the remains of a man who you can prove is the father of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of the grandfather of Your grandfather's grandfather.
We'll see you do it.
Section C: Animal skeletons are designed with a perfect "finish". What is perfect?! Ostriches have wings, deep-sea fish have eyes, snakes have vestigial legs, and the same goes for marine mammals. It's about the skeletons. Besides, the birds in the gardens have almost everything they need to make teeth and you can make them grow teeth by a very small manipulation, but all these genes are wasted in them - they simply do nothing because they are silenced. The same thing happens with the minke whales. So this is a "perfect finish"! I'm interested in who the finisher is who made it.
Section D: Incarnation in animals that has no chance of being carried out without prior planning. Do you understand what "odds" are? Can you show us how you calculate this "chance"?
Section E: All human tribes believed there were gods. What a beauty! They also believed that sacrifices should be made to them and often human sacrifices too! so that's it? Do human sacrifices really need to be made? Just because people of the generation you chose to stay in believed this nonsense?
Section XNUMX: Which ancestors are you talking about? The ancient Jews did not believe this. The early Christians did not believe this. Every idiot and his absurd belief. You choose as you please the absurd belief of the undeveloped people you identify with and ignore all other undeveloped people. There is an unfair deprivation here.
Section G: The knowledge of the Greeks that the earth is a globe carried by a god. Very interesting! How did they know that? you know that? Is the earth really a globe carried by a god? Maybe he just married his wife?
The second section (the one you put in place of section H): What exactly is amazing about the knowledge of the Mayans? I inform you that as one who believes that the earth is carried by a god you have no authority to say what astronomical knowledge is in general and what amazing astronomical knowledge is in particular.
Hey, I'm convinced.
How can I join you in the cult of Scientology?
A- Finding identical complete sections of DNA in organisms that have no direct developmental relationship between them.
In - there are no creatures that are "half-planned" (missing vertebrae).
C- Animal skeletons are designed with a perfect "finish".
D- Reincarnation in animals (egg, caterpillar, pupa, butterfly) that has no chance of occurring without prior planning.
All human tribes, even the most rejected, believed and still believe that there are gods.
And the absurdity of the ancients referring to the stars in the sky (a tiny point of light) as the abode of gods.
G- The knowledge of the pigeons that the earth is a globe carried on the back of God...
The amazing knowledge of the Mayan tribes in astronomy.
Perhaps instead of saying so many times that there are many facts, Hazy would present one "fact" that shows that life originates from space?
How did they say the good, the bad and the ugly?
If you want to shoot, shoot! don't talk
Michael,
It is true that panspermia does not give an answer to how the first cell was formed. But at the moment there is no theory accepted by most scientists regarding the creation of the aforementioned cell on Earth, therefore the possibility that it came from another source is legitimate.
The theories that talk about the place of creation of the first cell on Earth range from the vents in the oceanic ridges through the sea itself, that primordial soup, through the depths of the earth to theories that talk about the edge of the atmosphere as the place where the first cell was created.
The problem with this story is that even if we create an artificial cell in the laboratory it will only prove that the possibility exists and not that this is what actually happened.
There are many, many more facts and proofs for the version I brought here,
than the version which claims that life developed randomly "on its own".
It is especially necessary to remember that the claimants of the "random" version are unable to show how humans evolved randomly...
I don't have a problem with panspermia, but I do have a problem with extraordinary claims with no extraordinary evidence.
Hezi,
You brought the theory of the origin of life in space as a contrast to the theory of evolution, but if you have no idea how life was created in space, what is the value and what is the advantage of your theory?
All the doubts you raise about the origin of life on Earth are also valid for the origin of life in space.
You don't solve any problem, but rather move the problem from the earth to space.
By the way, what do you think, is it possible that life in space was created by an evolutionary process?
Rah:
The pansphere theory does exist, but it does not give an answer to the question of how the first living cell was created and therefore does not compete with theories on this subject. It simply says that the first living cell was created somewhere else.
Chest:
you are rambling
A. That you have no idea at all does not indicate that others have no idea. Many people know how the species were created.
B. What is this forecast? How do you come to such strange conclusions? If someone comes and claims that he planted animals here, he will have no problem proving it. It will take him a maximum of one round trip between Earth and his home planet.
third. Of course you are talking about a lot, a lot. You can't show us even one so why don't you talk about the price of the same ticket for many many many?
d. There aren't many species that are "suitable" for an asteroid impact. The dinosaurs survived for many millions of years and there is no reason why they would not survive if they were brought here.
God. Life forms have evolved from you already here but don't worry - they won't make you extinct. Level of development is not necessarily related to the desire to exterminate others.
and. Who exactly will prevent the absorption of the dinosaurs? What other crap do you have to sell?
G. Show me one animal (other than bacteria) that can survive a trip to an asteroid. No animal can survive the vacuum, the cold, the radiation, the burning in the atmosphere while entering it and the crash on Earth. Any one of these alone would destroy any non-bacterial animal.
Reply to all who refer to my first comment:
A- I already wrote here that I have no idea (nor does anyone) how they were created and who created the species in space (like "God").
B- There is a chance that one day we will know who created life in our galaxy (very doubtful) but it will take a very long time to know for sure...
C- I am talking about many, many, many sources for the creation of life in space, and not one single source.
D- The species that exist today are a small part of the species that exist in space, some of which were already brought here but became extinct, due to lack of compatibility.
It is certainly possible that life forms more developed than us will arrive here, which will exterminate us...
And - regarding the dinosaurs, today there are life forms here that will not allow their absorption and proliferation again...
G- I mention again that a considerable part of species that exist today were sent here with the help of natural or artificial "missiles" (asteroids, for example), and not by means that were capable of returning to space.
Hezi, there is the panspermia theory which claims that the origin of the first cell is from space and from which all other species developed here. This theory, by the way, was enthusiastically supported by Nobel laureate Francis Crick. This theory is legitimate since we do not yet have any established theory showing how the first cell was formed. Today there are many works to create cells in the laboratory and they have already succeeded in creating cell-like structures that reproduce, but of course this does not prove that this is indeed the origin of the first cell.
But regarding what you claim, there is no serious scientist who thinks that all species came from space and did not evolve here, what is Noah's Ark?
Chest:
Beyond the nonsense of the idea itself - didn't it occur to you that we are one of the species and that our ability to live depends on the existence of other species?
Many species are already extinct.
Some of the species became extinct because species that supported the habitat they needed became extinct earlier.
It can also happen to a person and you and your children will not help if they bring new people later.
By the way, tell me: aren't you afraid that they will bring back the dinosaurs?
And what about the diseases we managed to eradicate? Will they reintroduce the bacteria that generate them?
On second thought - maybe aliens really sent the envelopes with the anthrax?
Hezi,
You have completely convinced me - there is no doubt that all species arrived on Earth from a certain place in space.
Now all that remains is to explain a small and marginal matter, and I have no doubt that you will be able to do it easily:
How did all the species originate in that place in space?
I am patiently waiting for an explanation
1- Your conclusions are not necessarily correct.
If they were created by evolution, then you can also assume that them being destroyed means they were simply less fit so it doesn't matter. Protecting the environment is not related to these reasons, but to the desire for the earth to be more diverse and other reasons that see these animals as colonial or scientific possibilities.
Hezi
How do you know it's saved there?
Maybe all the species were brought here because their origin is extinct??
Besides, if you believe that all of these species were brought in whole, then, hmm, wow.
To correctly answer this question,
We must return to the old and painful debate: how species were created...
Those who think that species were created "randomly" by random evolution,
He will champion the preservation of the species even with great efforts.
Those who think (like me) that species were brought from space, will think that there is no need to make an effort to preserve them, because the source will be preserved in their place of origin...