Evolution is a continuous process dictated by "trial and error", it takes place because of mistakes, mistakes (mutations) that are selected by natural selection, the mistakes happen in the coding or copying of the traits (genes) and usually they are eliminated brutally and quickly
It is important to understand: evolution has no goal and no plan!
Evolution is a continuous process dictated by "trial and error", it takes place because of mistakes, mistakes (mutations) that are selected by natural selection, the mistakes happen in the coding or copying of the traits (genes) and usually they are eliminated brutally and quickly.
From time to time a mistake (mutation) is created which, due to a change in environmental conditions, is not eliminated, but on the contrary, gives the subject of the mistake an advantage, an advantage - meaning the ability to pass on his (slightly different) traits to his descendants who will pass them on, and thus a change is created, which over many generations will promote advantageous individuals to the other population nation, individuals These will form a subspecies and subsequently a different species from the original population.
The opponents of evolution mainly claim that "there are no intermediate forms that show the connections between species in the same genus". A misguided and wrong argument, since despite the frustrating poverty of fossils, paleontologists find quite a few "missing vertebrae", ironically, precisely in our species, more and more "missing vertebrae" are accumulating.
The lack of "missing links" from the past is indeed frustrating, but with a correct and skillful scientific view, you can see the existence of evolution today, you can see how natural selection arbitrates mistakes and promotes environmental successes.
There are examples of evolution that can be seen nowadays: due to natural selection / or artificial selection by man, and below are some of them: many bacteria and viruses develop resistance to antibiotic drugs, insects: develop resistance to insecticides,
A common moth in Europe whose color was light gray - like the color of the tree trunks on which it stayed, changed its color to black in the wake of the industrial revolution that "painted" the tree trunks with a black soot coating, the same species exists in rural areas in its original color.
Songbirds, in a noisy urban environment, "learned" to make loud sounds that overcome the noise, the same species in rural areas continue to sing quietly because loud sounds attract raptors and predators.
Molluscs in America developed a shell whose walls are thick following the arrival of a predatory crab with large and powerful pincers in their environment. Vampire bats in South America have developed resistance to rabies! Foxes, raccoons, rats, mice and many other species have learned to exist in city streets and use garbage as food and stairwells as hiding places. Tigers in Africa and India "learned" to live in urban suburbs.
By exploiting the laws of selection - even if without their knowledge and understanding, man has developed hundreds of subspecies (races/varieties) of domestic animals and agricultural and garden plants: the origin of all citrus varieties from one natural species. Tomatoes, wheat, rice and so on originate from species in nature that have been adapted with the help of artificial selection to human requirements. Geese, ducks and chickens were developed from wild species of the carp (fish) species. Hundreds of species (varieties) were developed in different sizes and colors.
Chihuahuas and Great Danes belong to the same species. Both are descended from the wolf. Siamese cat and Persian cat both belong (like all other domesticated cat breeds) to the same species as wild cat, from which they were developed. Breeds of cattle / cows in the whole world are of the same species!
The largest of them all, the elephants, stopped growing large tusks, the carriers of the genes for large tusks were hunted for about a hundred years, a hunter who gave an advantage to males with small tusks and these passed on their traits (their genes) to future generations.
These are several examples of the existence of evolution in a form that can be seen - today. The question arises, what is the role of creation/intelligent planning in all of this?
40 תגובות
Because statistically there are more fools than smart people, and therefore they have more political power. What's more, the sages are divided between many parties, while the ultra-Orthodox are concentrated in two parties in total (which are not divided by ideology but by skin color)
If there are already arguments here about faith, then how is that?
Studying at university costs a lot of money
Whereas studying in a yeshiva is free
I have no problem with it.
Adam, an ape-like ancestor is also a type of ape, so the populist sentence is in the eye of the beholder. You can already say that man comes from the soup (chemicals) :)
It is incorrect to say that there was a separation of man from the ape family, man and ape had a common ancestor, from which two different secondary branches branched off. In other words, the phrase "Man descended from the monkey species" is purely populist.
My father does not belong. How, for example, was a separation between man and the ape family gradually created?
Mating creatures are a later development.
Father, you are talking about asexual beings. I am about mating creatures.
Plants don't need a partner, so apparently even the primitive creatures could manage without, usually they would be content with division.
my father
So what do you suggest Michael? that within the organism there were flames and wisps of smoke?
And where did you get the claim that building DNA does not require complex enzymes? Demanding also demanding. dna polymerase, which forms phosphodiester bonds. And of course DNA helicases will break them down, for future generations.
Regarding polyploidy (duplication of the genome): if it occurs, how will they produce offspring for the next generation without a mateable offspring?
Why do you think so? And the functional similarity between the variations you mentioned (photosynthesis and cellular respiration) more than indicates the possibility of a transition from one to the other. Does glycolysis require complex enzymes? Throw sugar into the fire and see how it breaks down wonderfully without enzymes. And of course, building DNA does not require complex enzymes. The purpose of the enzyme is mainly to take care of the order of the construction and that the molecules come at the right angle in relation to the zinc ion which is the core of the reaction.
Regarding the plants - duplication of the genome creates a new species at once. Studies have shown that a significant number of plant species were created this way, including most cultivated plants. read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid#Polyploidy_in_plants
Michael- Even ions can perform catalytic activity. But certain functions (most functions actually) require complex proteins. For example, photosynthesis, glycolysis or blood coagulation.
As for the plants - if they are not interferable because of the number of chromosomes, how did they reproduce in the first place when the number of chromosomes changed for the first time?
Single atoms can also have catalytic activity. The "catalytic activity" is a continuous phenomenon. That is - it is not there or there is not. A great many structures in nature have basic catalytic activity for all kinds of reactions. and hence the hand is tilted. Again, read about the ice fish.
In the case of the plants that I brought you, they are not compatible due to a variation in the number of chromosomes. And the mosquitoes - prove that you don't have a sister.
Michael - You will not get any complex (or even simple in my opinion) catalytic activity from a 10 ha protein. Don't know where you get it from. Proteins are usually hundreds of ha long.
As for the mosquitoes - even species that were considered to be genetically isolated were suddenly found to be mating partners. So it is a problem to prove speciation. Even a mule may rarely be fertile.
It's very hard to understand when you don't want to.
Regarding the nucleotide synthesis system - it is very difficult to know how such a system was created so many years ago, but the general explanation I gave earlier (borrowing from existing systems) is the basic issue. According to the conditions believed to have existed in the primitive organic soup, there was no need to synthesize nucleotides, they existed in the environment. When gradually this need appeared, then the duplication of existing genes and mutations in them (the question) could enable this process.
In principle, any protein sequence that you take that is over... 10 ha in length will have at least one basic catalytic activity. If this reaction has a significant advantage then evolution can act on this basic ability and strengthen it immeasurably. This is exactly what happened with the proteins of the ice fish (see the link I attached earlier).
Speciation occurred before the eyes of scientists in plants. The case of the mosquito is also very interesting - it is a species of mosquito that was never recorded anywhere before the appearance of the subway in Britain (and they were excellent naturalists, so it is hard to imagine that they missed it) but after it was built, it began to be recorded there. It is similar to the mosquito that is outside, but today there is a clear behavioral and morphological difference and they do not breed with each other. So true, no one followed them day and night for the 100 or so years it was supposed to happen, but this is a pretty convincing example of speciation.
There really is no such thing as "intermediate fossils", for the simple reason that it cannot be proven that they evolved from one another (even cars are terribly similar to each other). In addition, the pictures that show the grade describe phenotypic changes. While at the molecular level these changes may require giant steps.
Michael, this is a very simple mutation. I'm talking at the principle level. If I want to make a nucleotide, I need a very complex protein, which knows how to connect 3 different parts. It is not necessarily related to the origin of life, but to the explanation of evolution in general. After all, new reactions were also created during evolution itself.
Regarding a mini ring - I don't really understand. Did the speciation happen before the eyes of the scientists? If so, how do you explain that species A can produce offspring with species B, but not with species C? And C can compare with B but not with A. I don't really understand the matter.
Today, function X is performed by a complex system Y that uses Z elements. In the past it could have been done differently, and the elements could have been used in other systems, and today there is no trace of the original operation of any component. Again, read the link in Nature about the ice fish to see how elements can move from one role to another and don't have to be created from nothing.
And besides, the example you gave is relevant to the formation of life and not to its evolution! As explained in the previous article on the subject, these are 2 different areas. One of the beautiful claims of evolution is that a large part of the changes occur while playing with existing genetic elements (dolphin fins, fingers, bat wings, gliding wings of certain rodents, all small modifications on the basic structure of the tetrapod limb).
Regarding ring species - the salamanders of California do not reproduce even with in vitro fertilization. Nor the fly I brought you.
How do theologians contradict the evolution of marine mammals, found in their fossils?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
Maybe adopt a uniform nickname, so that they don't think there are a million creationists in the country?
For example, take a system that includes 3 components for its function (for example, a system for synthesizing nucleotides). There is no benefit given only some of the components but all of them together, and hence it could not develop gradually. This is the whole macro claim on one leg. All the rest of bacteria and antibiotic resistance or citrate digestion, these are very simple mutations.
Regarding the fusion - the evolution scientists failed to show that the fusion took place over 10000 years ago. So fusion took place in man. But even if not - there is no evidence of evolution from here. Because this could happen regardless of common origin.
Regarding the appearance of new species: Ring species are not new species. They are still capable of producing offspring through artificial insemination.
At a time when many species are rapidly becoming extinct and many animals and plants are behaving strangely - isn't it presumptuous to think that evolution must have no plan and purpose? Where does the security come from?
I think that intellectual honesty requires full disclosure that beyond evolution as it is studied - no one knows for sure what to say. From this point on it is already a personal faith - and a person will live in his faith - why exclude another faith??? Rather, the fervor perhaps indicates emotionality, apprehension and fear of the collapse of a concept that is defended at all costs.
Too bad, no need!!! Those who are open to testing any idea should not be so excited by the suggestion of another idea.
Michael,
exactly. Moreover, the evidence for the theory of tectonic plates is, in my opinion, much less strong than the evidence for evolution, and still no one attacks the theory with such gusto, which shows that the whole debate here is completely unscientific and there is no point in even trying to convince the unconvinced that it is not logic that is talking here.
Levin - no one watched a mouse give birth to a cat.
I think it's a bit ironic, because if it happens naturally I will start believing in God, and if I understood correctly you will believe in evolution...
It's just ridiculous. You can write until tomorrow "not observed" but there is something called "the result test" a theory makes a prediction that is often technological and the very construction of a process or device according to the theory confirms it.
Hundreds of thousands of laboratories in the world, production processes based on fermenters, agricultural and medical developments, development of dog breeds and other things mentioned in the present article were created while directly applying the evolutionary understanding. So how can you come and say "not observed"? "Micro but not macro"? How do you argue with the test result?
"Motzio only destroys"? After all, in the laboratory it was observed that E. coli bacteria gained the ability to utilize food sources that were not possible before (citrate) and the mutation was mapped. So how can you go back and dig that "no constructive mutation was observed"?
Dear Levin,
The common origin of man and chimpanzee is 4-6 million years ago. 200,000 years before our time is the approximate date of appearance of Homo sapiens (not yet in its final form).
The appearance of new species in nature has been observed quite a number of times. for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito
Also, in plants, processes of creating a new species can take... 2 generations! This is because of some unique genetic characteristics of the plants. For this reason, the appearance of new plant species was recorded in Britain during the 20th century.
Tell me - but it's not a mouse that gives birth to a cat. If evolution researchers saw mice giving birth to cats, it would be evidence against evolution, not in favor of it! Such dramatic processes (their ancestor lived before the extinction of the dinosaurs!!!) are supposed to take millions of years and there is no reason for you to see them.
An interesting point is that evolution is not such a special science. Even in cosmology and geology, for example, you don't see all the stages because they take millions of years. This is our limitation, not the theory's :).
And if you want to read how a unique family of proteins can and did develop from very few mutations, read:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6752/abs/401443a0.html
Payroll
From what you write, God played in evolution. It's nice, but the source tells about God creating species as they are and that's it. If the findings don't line up with the story, you can choose who to go with, but forcefully match you - doesn't work.
Intelligent planning, for example, does not agree with the structure of the eye and the course of the optic nerve. Alternatively, if it is planning and if it is intelligent, it is someone who is quite negligent and not entirely successful.
A quibble, the definition of whether fusion happened in a human or still in a monkey is artificial, after all there were many intermediate species between the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees and up to the modern human, some of them belong to monkeys and some to ancient human species, they could just as well move the border somewhere else.
Fusion in general is absent in humans, but not in any ape. That is, man was created with 48 chromosomes, and the fusion took place in him, not long ago (as I imagine, something like only a few thousand years).
For macro and micro, it's like opening a single digit lock. And this macro is like opening a 100 digit lock. Therefore micro accumulation does not create macro.
Levin, how exactly does chromosomal fusion point to intelligent design? Why would an intelligent designer who supposedly created us as we are plant a chromosome in our body that looks "as if" it is a connection of 2 separate chromosomes that exist in chimpanzees?
You can even see the suture line between them, the tulymers that in all other chromosomes are only at the ends.
Why would an intelligent planner do such a thing? for whatever reason?
Levine stop confusing the brain. After all, according to your opinion, all the evolutionary variation between humans happened in less than 6000 years. And even worse if you start counting rest. You didn't think about that, so stop confusing your brain.
In my answer I thought you meant a "negative" mutation as a mutation with a negative effect, so I gave this explanation. If we are talking about loss of information, then the very fact that there are various mutations that cause a gain of function, so that the protein production does not stop at the relevant codon and a completely new protein with a different functionality is created, contradicts this assumption. There is also the example of the addition of information in whole chromosomes following a mutation, such as Kleepenter syndrome, in which an addition of a Y chromosome occurs (so that patients have an XXY chromosome) and an addition of information occurs (with negative effects, admittedly).
CCR5 "responsible for T cells" is a misnomer in terms of biological understanding. It is used by the T-cells in order to fuse membrane with their target cells (and this is used by HIV). This is why there is a greater exposure to various diseases - because the effectiveness of the T cells is impaired due to a mutation in it. So he is not "responsible" for anything. It has a certain function, like mine has a hand, so I use it to write.
Rather, the chromosomal fusion points to intelligent planning.
Where else in nature do you have such fusion? Such fusions are only seen in genetic engineering laboratories.
And the difference between the number of defects in the genome of chimpanzees (several hundred) and humans (over 4 thousand defects)
And all this happens evolutionarily in about 250,000 years (the appearance of man according to mitochondrial DNA studies)?
completely disprove the common origin hypothesis
A person,
It's like saying a person without legs won't get athlete's foot.
There is a negative mutation and loss of information here.
The CCR5 is responsible for the T cells that fight infections
Indeed, studies on CCR5 show that those with the mutation are four times more exposed to diseases such as hepatitis C
and West Nile fever
I will only add that the extinction due to AIDS would have been due to a "negative mutation" that would have promoted the aggressiveness of the infection... for example, through passing through the air.
Micro, macro, macro. There is no such thing as a "negative mutation". A mutation is a mutation - for better or for worse.
Although I am aware that I am talking to a wall, I will still try:
Did you know that there are people who are resistant to AIDS in the world? Indeed, that is the case. This is the typical garden in a group of Ashkenazi Jews, and in a group of prostitutes in Africa. The HIV virus attaches to the cell membrane through two co-receptors (one of which is CCR5), which it uses to enter the cell. In the absence of CCR5 (due to mutation), the virus is unable to enter the cell in question. Below - resistance to the AIDS epidemic! Meaning, if we didn't live in a medically developed world ("cocktail"), we were supposed to become extinct at some point, when only these guys would survive. Below is evolution. Because of a "positive mutation".
But mutation is random, and not positive or negative, but simply what it is: mutation.
Therefore, natural selection is random. Therefore everything is random. Another example of evolution among us: what do dogs, cats, pigeons, people have in common? There is a wide variety of their species. Why? Because they are no longer a species that needs to survive. Therefore, no selection occurs and there is external variability. No need to adapt to the environment. Why do zebras in Africa look the same? Because they exist under constant selection, and they have reached a certain ideal equilibrium.
Levin,
Large genetic changes (macroevolution as you define it) apply in several forms:
1) A collection of individual mutations that keep accumulating, genetic drift.
2) Transverse genetic transfer of large genetic segments at once.
3) Genetic aberrations in which there are transposon jumps, chromosome fusions, recombination, fragments causing deficiencies, etc.
All these were also observed.
Regarding the second point, it is a simplistic and childish approach to define mutations as positive or negative. Is sickle cell anemia positive or negative?
Of course it is negative, it causes the death of the homozygotes, but on the other hand, of course it is positive, it brings resistance to malaria in the heterozygotes.
Another example, is a mutation for resistance against the antibiotic rifampicin positive or negative? Of course it is positive because it protects the bacteria from the antibiotics. On the other hand, it is certainly negative because it damages the normal function of the RNA polymerase and when there are no antibiotics in the environment, the mutants grow more slowly than the others and they die out.
So this statement of yours "observed mutations are always neutral or negative" is completely wrong.
Mutations?
The mutations observed are always either neutral or negative. How can they promote macroevolution?
The famous experiment of Prof. Edward Lewis winner of the Nobel Prize with the fruit flies and morphology confirms this.
Not only does the fly remain a fly after all the mutation factor experiments, but the mutations themselves are negative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4EqNR-AWqk
Levin, if you are so against evolution, please go comment on pan sites and other anti-science sites. For you it is an ideology, the truth is not important to you.
You probably haven't heard of mutations. Especially about the fusion of two chromosomes that in chimpanzees are separate and in humans they are connected and even in a rather sloppy way.
my father
You are stating a fact here that no one disputes.
Microevolution is indeed observed in nature, i.e. changes within the species (as demonstrated in the article).
Indeed it is a scientific theory.
In contrast to macroevolution, a mouse giving birth to a cat has never been observed.
And it is clearly not scientific.
Pushing macroevolution is done by a sociological and not a scientific motive.
"It is important to understand: evolution has no goal and no plan"
How can this be understood without certain assumptions that include the assumption that nothing has a purpose?