A comparative study of the evolution of many species has shown that evolution does not run to stay still, but jumps far and rests intermittently in many cases
There are those who have compared evolution to the "Red Queen" from the stories of "Alice in Wonderland", where the idea is that "to stay in place you have to run all the time", or as an illustration of the evolution of species: to be adapted to changing conditions, to remain fit for survival in the natural environment, You have to develop continuously.
The comparison and the assumption that species evolve continuously in a slow but constant process, brought the concept of the "Red Queen" to the world of science dealing with evolution. Despite debates and disagreements between different approaches, most researchers accept the approach that evolution occurs in small steps over a long period of time. That is, the species must continue to evolve in order to remain adapted to their habitat, development and adaptation by "genetic mixing" through selection/pair selection.
Evolve or become extinct, like the "Red Queen".
Those who oppose the "Red Queen" approach claim that: the conclusion obtained from this approach is that all species in a certain family will develop at an equal speed and rate, tests in the field show that this situation does not always exist.
A new study tries to confirm or contradict the accepted approach, the researchers: Mark Pagel and his team from the University of Reading in England, publish their findings in "Nature". The researchers tested four models of differentiation to see which model would give the The better explanation, one of the models being tested was the "Red Queen". A hundred groups in the plant and animal kingdoms were examined, including species such as: wood bees, turtles, foxes, roses and others.
The lengths of the "branches of evolution" (how long did changes take) were examined in thousands of species in an attempt to estimate the length of time between (events of) differentiation. When the four models were compared for the history of evolution (evolution), the "Red Queen" approach matched (only) 8% of the branches of the families, nearly 80% of the examined "branches" matched the model in which new species were created following a "unique evolutionary event(s) (yam) and rare(yim)", according to the researchers, "it seems that the red queen does not run to stay in place, but jumps far and rests alternately". According to Pagel, "differentiation is created as "happy accidents", rare environmental events such as mountain uplift, climate changes, are what cause species to differentiate, the researcher continues and claims that "perhaps it is a mistake to think that what causes differentiation is natural selection"?
Pagal continues and hopes that "a change of attitude will help to unravel the mysteries of differentiation".
Mike Benton, a palaeontologist from the University of Bristol, claims that despite the objections, there is a chance that following the publication, attention will be diverted from "competition between species and the effect on individual species to the development of groups of species." Evolutionary biologists will examine the methods and approaches used by researchers and examine the data to compare it to the traditional/accepted approach. Considering that most of those dealing with the subject have learned and internalized the Darwinist approach that supports the "red queen principle", it is clear that the publication of the research conclusions will cause a stir.
16 תגובות
I let him go but he just exceeded the limit of no more than one comment per article. He has a tendency to hijack discussions and therefore I agreed with him on this condition and he undertook to comply with it. Besides, if the site upsets him and everything written on it he thinks the opposite, then why does he read and why does he respond. Let him move to more convenient sites for his worldview such as another truth.
Abby, may I know why Ron's comment was blocked? I am intrigued to know what his answer is to my question.
Friends (Or, Rah) I sent you a detailed response - which is blocked here on the site.
I'm sorry.
Thanks for the comments.
light:
You don't need a specific education to see the bluff behind global warming for example - all you need is the information
We are simply prevented from receiving the other party's information in the mainstream media or in the establishment - then it becomes very transparent
I cannot add multiple links to my response here - as I will surely be blocked
Go to the other true website - and do a search on the website for:
Global warming - and you will receive an article called
Global warming - the lie that speaks to the heart
The description of the intervention (on the subject of the origin of man) sounds delusional
Go to another truth finder - and do a search on the site for:
Extraterrestrials - and you will receive an article called
UFOs and extraterrestrials the full picture: what is "easy" to digest - unbelievable
Read these two articles and you will get some background on what I am basing it on - then argue with me
With joy.
You will see who supports (unwittingly) the negative agenda
Rah:
I really liked your comment.
However, I don't believe everything - Alois is not alive, there was a landing on the moon, etc.
just in case to
I talked about 3 topics in total -
Vaccines, climate, and aliens - that's it.
And now a lecture on the origin of man - which sounds rational to me in light of the information based on the other topics.
I have been following the material and digging into these topics for almost two years
Regarding the example of the dogs - there is only a difference in size (and aren't they breeds that humans have caged?)
The researcher in the film brought to me very strong evidence for his theory
The word "illusory" means nothing, it can be said about anything new and different
As an example he gave - a bear that only eats plants? (the panda) and more.
Including the last part of the lecture about genetics and the information from Sumer (in Iraq) - amazing!
What's funny is that if all the scientists thought that what Sharon says is true, he would honestly say that they are liars with vested interests who don't want us to know the real truth 🙂
Or, it seems to me in light of Ron's previous comments that you are wrong.
Ron just likes to believe that everything that is accepted is not true and not only that, there is also a connection of silencing and hiding the truth. Ron will tell you (and he does claim this on his website The Other Truth) that the vaccinations are a conspiracy, that there are alien visits and abductions all around, that evolution is wrong, that there is no global warming, the end of the world is coming, Nibir, Anonki, did I miss something Ron?
And again I ask you, what is everything, everything that we know is wrong?
If you were to focus on one claim, it would be possible to seriously argue with you, but come and say that everything is not true?? And again, there may even be a language where you are right about something, but the automatic and blanket objection only raises ridiculousness and a non-serious treatment of your claims.
By the way, I bothered and saw the delusional lecture that "enlightened" you with the truth about evolution. Really, the Cro-Magnons are hiding in the mountains? Is Big Foot Neanderthals? Is there no limit to nonsense?
He claims that it is impossible for the skull of Homo sapiens to have changed within hundreds of thousands of years in total from that of early man. Has he ever looked at the skulls of a Chihuahua or a Great Dane that were created in the last few centuries from a wolf-like dog? Was there also an intervention by the Anunki from Nibiru????
Ron,
This is not the first time you state that scientific theories are wrong. Only in your responses to this article did you deny both evolution and global warming. You know very well that the scientific establishment is united behind both theories, and especially behind the evolution behind which there is no dispute among the scientists involved in the field.
May I know, in order to better judge your review, what is your scientific education? Are you an evolution or climate researcher?
What the two theories you dismissed have in common is that both, in addition to being scientific, also have clear implications for politics. Evolution removed man from the throne as supreme over all living things and also damaged religious claims about the creation of species by God. Global warming argues against the current method of resource utilization (burning in a geological blink of an eye fossil fuels created over eons). It is clear to me who are the political factors that may benefit from denouncing these two ideas - if not in the eyes of the scientific establishment then in the eyes of the public.
I think you identify with these political factors and your criticism stems, at least in part, from this identification. I would appreciate it if you could tell me if this is indeed the case or not.
Why do you think this is religious propaganda?
This is another theory that fits well with the facts
Unlike the theory of evolution.
It is difficult to leave paradigms even though they are wrong - see the value of global warming
Which of course does not exist - it is no longer a secret that you can continue to hide and manipulate it
See what is happening in the world these days
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3830566,00.html
The only stupidity is to keep insisting
Ron, if you discover new biology you will win a Nobel Prize. And I'm sorry, but my time is limited and I'm not going to listen to religious propaganda lectures, and it doesn't matter which religion, because I won't learn anything from it except about human stupidity.
They do not connect at all with evolution - certainly not with genetics.
My father - watch the lecture and judge.
Ron, sometimes you have to be careful because if you open your head too much, the mind runs away.
I'm sure there are people who don't like the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a camera and knows how to talk nicely in front of it is also right. In this case, we are talking about 150 years of research during which countless attempts were made to contradict evolution and it is a muscle and exists. In evolution too, all the parts connect - microevolution, macroevolution, genetics.
The lecture that opened my mind regarding the truths and lies of evolution is
Everything you know is wrong
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1285345463618889531&ei=B2JqScX6KIvCrQKU_s2tDA&q=intervention+theory#
Puts the pieces together very nicely.
The evolutionary leaps are nothing new. In addition, a number of mechanisms that lead to them have also been found. For example, the transfer of genes or parts of genes by viruses, transposons and other carrier elements, plasmids, gene fusions and breaks by recombination, and more. Apparently, from an evolutionary point of view, both the slow changes caused by point mutations and the dramatic changes caused by whole segment changes are all important.
An interesting article, but not so new: already in the early seventies, Stephen J. Gold and Nils Eldredge established that evolutionary development takes place in leaps.
Despite the above, I believe that genetic changes occur all the time and at a fairly constant rate, but that their expression in animal populations is the one that appears in jumps according to the conditions dictated by the environment. That is, when environmental pressure appears, those who have the changes in their arsenal, changes that make them suitable for dealing with the change, are the ones that survive. The manifestation of the permanent change in the genetic pool is the one that appears in jumps. There is no contradiction between the red queen model and the change in jumps, because the queen did not run at a uniform rate, but at a rate that changes according to the rate of environmental change, and thus she stays in place.
Very interesting article. I'm not sure the Red Queen approach really conflicts with other approaches. Everyone who is with us today (from humans to the latest viruses and everything in between) is adapted to survive today. Anyone who failed to last remained primitive to the existing environmental conditions or lost abilities they needed. The race to stay in place clearly exists in general systems and may not be appropriate for its details when it comes to certain species or families. For example, it is common to talk about the element of the Red Queen in the war between diseases and vaccination against them: while all we want is "just" to stay healthy, the pathogenic bacteria want to make us sick. In doing so, we develop an arsenal of weapons in the form of an immune system and arm it more and more in order to stand still - in order to stay healthy. Unlike us, the bacteria or viruses also arm their arsenal of weapons just so they can penetrate our defense systems.
What is the difference between this and the development of some beetle? It is not clear and there is room for research. The article shows again the fact that running to stay in place is not the only option and puts on the discussion table possibilities of developments that are too good or better than the need of species in the existing environment. Jumps disproportionate to the real need in the field. After Darwin genes were discovered and then everyone abandoned slow evolution. They said there are only big jumps. Over the years they did the synthesis and realized that there are certainly jumps due to genetic mutations, but at the level of the total system the changes are slow over time.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Dr. Rosenthal Thank you!
Very interesting and important article.
Can I get a link to the original article?