The underwater tank: Minnows developed an armor that protected them when the water was clear. Earlier when the water in the lake was murky they did not need armor for protection from predators
In many cases, evolution proceeds at rest for thousands of years. But sometimes, as in the case of the three-spined stickleback, the process can happen very quickly. This is the conclusion reached by researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in a study to be published in the upcoming issue of Current Biology.
The researchers examined the minnows that live in Lake Washington in the Seattle area. A year ago, the lake was one of the most polluted areas in the United States. Blue and green algae grew and thrived on the more than 50 million gallons of sewage that poured into the lake every day. But thanks to a cleanup project that cost 140 million dollars, the lake today is a dazzlingly beautiful resort.
When the lake was polluted, the clarity of the water was low and did not allow the fish in the lake to see beyond a range of one meter. The murky water provided the minnows with a dull mantle of protection against their traditional predators, and because of this the minnows needed less bony body armor to protect them from predators and lost it in a rapid evolutionary process.
In 1968, after the cleaning of the lake was successfully completed, the clarity of the water reached a depth of three meters. Today, transparency reaches a depth of over eight meters. The minnows lost the mantle of growth to which they had become accustomed in the polluted years, and were forced to undergo a 'reverse' evolution. In the past forty years, about half of the sticklebacks in Lake Washington have developed full body armor, which includes bony plates that protect their bodies from head to tail. If we talk in numbers, then in the late sixties only 6% of the minnow population in Lake Washington was covered with full body armor. Today, 49% are fully armored, and 35% are semi-armored.
"We suggest that the most likely reason for this reverse evolution is the higher levels of predation by trout, following the sudden increase in water clarity," says the paper's lead author, Dr. Kathryn Feichel. She believes that the fish's ability to quickly adapt to environmental changes is a result of the extensive genetic differences between them. The sticklebacks in Lake Washington contain DNA from saltwater fish, which tend to sport full armor, as well as freshwater fish that typically don't wear armor. When the environmental pressures required a fuller armor for the fry, some of the fish had copies of the genes that controlled the level of armor - whether low or high - and natural selection favored those that had full armor.
The gene that controls the level of armor is called Eda, and it comes in one of two forms: one causes little armor and the other results in full armor. Feichel was the first to find the area where the Eda Garden is located, while she was a postdoctoral researcher in David Kingsley's lab at Stanford University.
This gene also exists in humans, and mutations in it can cause a syndrome called ectodermal dysplasia. This syndrome is the result of over a hundred hereditary problems in the development of the ectoderm, which is the outer layer of the embryonic tissue involved in the formation of important parts of the body, including the skin, nails, hair, teeth and sweat glands.
"There is probably a developmental connection between these external structures in humans and the bony plates on fish," says Feichel. "Probably the Eda gene was also important to human evolution, although we still don't know exactly in what context."
Other partners in the study included researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Texas, Gifu Keizei University in Japan and the Institute for Humanity and Nature Research in Japan.
For information on the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center website
105 תגובות
Hybrid:
What is this split personality?
You mean to tell me that all the bullshitters I meet here are actually one person?
From what you learned about our brains - humans, didn't you realize that pretending actually lowers the credibility attributed to your words?
There are a lot of made-up stories about made-up people with made-up families circulating on the internet and you have to make a lot of effort to find out what is reliable. Those who do are not as impressed as you.
It is true that the brain can be influenced in different ways and precisely neuroscientists based on our understanding of the brain have found ways to do this (for example using a magnetic field).
It is also true that there are certain parts of our minds that take over our thoughts in a way that prevents other parts from being outwardly expressed, and this is the reason why a brain injury may, along with its destructive effects, also bring some positive effects. It does not change the worldview of those who understand what they are talking about but only the worldview of the collectors and tellers of the stories.
All I'm saying is that you be open to everything that happens around you and not just what your "older brothers" explained to you.
Great ideas come from even the simplest person.
The program I saw was broadcast on Channel 23 and did not deal with research at all.
She simply presented the wonderful phenomenon that is these people.
And they exist, they have families and they tell their story, how one day they had an accident and when they recovered, new genius abilities appeared in them like simply knowing what day it was on a certain date or calculating huge numbers in their head.
It's not something they learned in life but something that just appeared in them as a result of a brain injury.
Even more interesting is that they all describe losing consciousness in the accident.
You don't have to be a great scientist to see that there is something here that somewhat contradicts the way we have learned to think about brain function.
curious:
I am sure you will enjoy this article:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/995773.html
curious,
I wonder how you are convinced that Leonardo believed in the concept of God. Have you read his writings, or are you coming up from the depths of your heart? Either way, it doesn't matter. In Leonardo's time, belief in God was the default, and it does not indicate anything about our time, in which we know that there are much better alternatives to phenomena that were previously explained only by God.
But that's beside the point.
You seem to have a wrong conception of scientists. when you ask,
"Why do you defend every idea written in a popular magazine in "religious fanaticism" as the followers of the Torah and God defend?"
You are shooting a completely rhetorical question in the air, which is not true at all. All the scientists I know, who read an article in their field of practice in the journals, immediately question it and try to understand whether it is true or not. Otherwise they would not be scientists. It's hard for me to understand where you got this strange belief that scientists fanatically defend ideas from journals.
You condemn the scientists for admitting they don't know. In contrast, it is very easy for you to come up with a theory about genius and compromise (as you did in the last comment). You say you need a real answer, but are not willing to accept ignorance. And so, dear curious, you're just guessing.
Ok, let's take it one step further.
Would you bet your daughter's life on this guess you made? Do you believe it is backed by enough testimony and evidence to verify it beyond a reasonable doubt?
I really hope you said no, because the theory you brought up does not seem plausible to me, and I have not found any evidence for its existence. But the reason I ask you this question is that scientists have to confront the results of their theories. A researcher who develops a new drug based on the theory of evolution, for example, has to face the possibility that he is wrong, in which case innocent people will die because the drug will fail. Every researcher knows that if he makes an unfounded hypothesis, it will have serious consequences for him.
Because of this, scientists are constantly trying to make sure that their hypotheses are correct, by getting a lot of evidence from nature and those around them. When we don't know something, we simply say we don't know it, or try to explain it according to the available evidence. But we are always aware that this is only a theory, and that theories can always be disproved.
What is the alternative? to guess. Would you risk other people's lives, or even your own life, on your guess? Because that's what the scientists are willing to do, so they're not willing to guess.
curious:
It's good that you didn't say that there is no rabbi who doesn't bother to thank God.
Although there are many artists and public figures who declare in Rish Gali that there is no God (Yohshua Sobol and Yair Garbuz recently joined a new party called Or founded by Yaron Yedan - the founder of "Deat Emet") but there are also those who believe in God.
Among the scientists the situation is completely different and the vast majority do not recognize the existence of God and among us - the real geniuses - those who really revealed truths about the world - are the scientists - not the artists and certainly not the public figures.
Know that in a herd of gorillas a gorilla will be chosen to lead the herd even if there is a human there. I hope you understand the parable.
The practice of science is based on the lack of knowledge - if we knew everything there would be no point in researching anything.
Therefore your accusations against the scientists and against those who you (mistakenly) think are reciting their words (because you do not understand that they are engaged in science themselves) are baseless. There is no religion here and no all-knowing thought.
I, by the way, am sure you know this and you are only saying this to fight science that has abandoned God.
Science has so far only given some of the answers - but at least it has given answers.
No other human discipline has ever given any answer.
I know that if I go back and say that Gadel's sentence prevents the possibility of formulating a final set of laws that fully describes the behavior of the world it will only confuse you even more but I say it anyway for people who are able to understand this and draw the conclusion that there will always be excuses for people like you who believe in God the gaps
My question is why do you defend every idea that is written in a popular magazine in "religious fanaticism" as the followers of the Torah and God defend?
The learned professors quote from your rabbis even though you do not receive the full answers from them.
Does "we haven't researched the field enough yet" or "it will take years to verify the research" sound more realistic or connected to the ground and therefore more real?
Is the message of temporary helplessness less discouraging, more human and therefore also more easily accepted by the community?
I don't know what "God" is and I'm not going to try to define it.
I know that there are many depths to life even before God and you don't have to go far.
I am convinced that Leonardo believed in the concept and many other good ones.
Today there is no artist or public figure who has achieved anything in life who does not bother to thank God at every opportunity. including heads of government and even on the American bill.
But that's not the issue here.
The point is that we have reached a point where we all turn pale without answers and the strongest answer I received from you about why things happen when they do and when life leaps forward in evolution is simple: pure luck.
I need a real answer that is not as simple as luck or on the other hand "God"
All the beautiful explanations of science drain to a critical point where the explanations run out and they start apologizing because "as of today there is not enough information, etc."
We all agree that man is part of nature, but aware of it and himself.
We all agree that nature exists and works outside the scope of human perception.
We all agree that science only gives some of the answers and is used to confirm only some of the phenomena that exist in front of us.
curious:
If what you mean by larger than life is God then you should know that the vast majority of the geniuses you speak of do not believe in Him.
If you are talking about nature then of course it is bigger than life because life is a part of it and then you actually didn't say anything new because they were really defined as geniuses based on discoveries about nature that others did not discover before them.
Regarding the program, you should not rely on it as a reliable source of information. There are programs (even on the BBC, the History Channel and Channel 8) that do not present the reliable reality, or the research correctly.
The only source that can be relied on as a reliable source of information is scientific journals. They can be difficult to read, but every article there is carefully reviewed by a number of scientists who know the subject inside out (and are usually happy to kill anyone who intrudes on their domain). If the article still managed to pass the tough review and get published in such a newspaper, it means it is reliable.
curious,
Your conclusion is very far reaching. As far as I know, the 'geniuses' just used the same tools that all researchers and scientists use. They were simply more diligent than most, smarter than most and with quite a bit of luck.
Before you base your conclusion, I suggest you talk to those geniuses and ask them themselves how they came to their conclusions. You can read the writings of Leonardo da Vinci, biographies about Einstein and the like. I think you will find that those 'geniuses' used exactly the same mental tools that all modern scientists use.
By the way of those mice, I saw a program about people who were damaged in their brains and as a result got the ability to calculate huge numbers, calculate days based on a date even from 50 years ago and one even knew how to memorize 1000 digits after Pi.
I think you helped me understand that you actually believe in luck.
I am beginning to understand that there is much beyond what we know or are able to "capture".
I think what distinguishes the geniuses is a change in their perception of reality.
Not necessarily to the range of an animal but beyond the ability of a normal person.
I conclude from this that there is something bigger than life in front of us, which we try to "grasp" but those geniuses were better able to do so and therefore could explain it to us very clearly.
Sorry for the delay in answering. The work is being carried out around the clock for the past few days.
curious,
I will try to answer your questions one by one. Keep in mind that I don't always have all the answers (of course), and that in any case I recommend you look for more and more in-depth answers, until you satisfy your curiosity.
"The same building blocks that make us up are also made up of cats, for example, but in a different form of expression. As we have the information to grow a tail but it is muted, so the lizard also has the ability to grow a wing but does not do so until the given moment when it needs to use it. "
Our building blocks are the bases that make up DNA and they create the language that determines what will happen to our cells and as a result what will happen to our body. A large part of our abilities is determined by the genes present in our cells. A lizard does not have the ability to grow a wing, for example, because it does not have the genes that control wing development.
It is important to remember that evolution works on mistakes that are successful in their time. Most mutations, as you have already rightly pointed out, are not beneficial and are therefore extinct. The few mutations that survive and thrive are those that give the organism a survival advantage (for example, creating slightly wider and thinner limbs that can slow down the speed of its fall from the tree). This is how evolution works - on lots of mistakes that fail, and a few individual mistakes that succeed and produce offspring with the same new trait.
You asked how we explain 'geniuses of a generation'. The truth is that there is not much to explain. Part of the answer is based on a genetic variation that results in the birth of smarter than average people. It's a thing that happens all the time. Another part is the education that those people receive. Another factor is called 'emotional intelligence', and it represents those people's diligence, their curiosity, their ambition and so on. Without all these, the genius will achieve nothing in his life.
There is nothing out of the ordinary here. It's just a combination of natural factors that result in an amazing and special product.
Regarding the issue of the brain using only 10% of its capacity, this is a common urban legend that I also believed in the past. But when you do a deeper search, you find that there is no evidence of this legend, but exactly the opposite - all the data we have shows that we desperately need every piece, no matter how small, of whitish-gray matter from our brains.
The origin of the legend is probably in an ancient study in which a researcher showed that mice can continue to perform basic tasks even when large pieces of their brains are cut out. But humans are not mice. Humans are often subjected to brain surgery and use the opportunity to study the structure of the brain. In all the tens of thousands of surgeries that have been conducted, an area of the human brain that has no role or purpose has yet to be discovered. Every person whose brain is damaged loses certain abilities and functions. It may regain them to some extent thanks to the brain's ability to repair itself, but the damage will never go away.
You may be interested in reading the following link, which deals with the subject: http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
Regarding your question about animals, we do know that animals have certain senses that are more sophisticated than ours - for example the bat's sonar or the dogs' sense of smell. For the benefit of man, I will point out that we are also endowed with abilities that far surpass those of certain other animals. In any case, it is difficult to define who is 'superior' and who is more 'inferior'.
How did such sophisticated features develop? This happened during the evolution of the various organisms, which adapted them to their environment. Most likely the bats developed the ability to chirp in loud voices to communicate with each other, and then their ears improved to such an extent that they could detect exactly where the sounds were coming from and whether they encountered surfaces on their way. Similar explanations exist for most of the complex abilities of animals, as well as humans.
Hopefully I have answered your questions for now,
Roy.
curious:
You may be curious but you don't remember.
So here is a quote from your words - this is the quote I responded to:
"I tend to think that man separates himself from the animal kingdom by being aware of himself.
It's interesting how the other scientists (in relation to the majority, in Michael's response) explain the phenomenon of new and original ideas that pop up in our minds."
I have shown you that all the features that distinguish man have a counterpart in animals.
The same goes for the opposite.
Having excellent senses of hearing, smell or sight - so much so that they feel different things far ahead of us - is also not a qualitative advantage but only a quantitative advantage.
It is clear that animals also have additional features that we do not have at all (just as we have features that those animals do not have). Indeed a chameleon can change color and we can only turn pale and blush. What conclusion do you want to draw from this?
It is also true that a chameleon is apparently not aware of itself (unlike, for example, dolphins, monkeys and us) - so what?
The fact that a certain person turns out to be a genius has many reasons - some genetic - some environmental and some pure luck.
In relation to the genetic source - although it is certain that it exists - there is still no information about the exact genes that cause it (and these could be thousands of different combinations, each of which results in a slightly different kind of genius) but what's the wonder that we don't know this yet? The whole relationship between genotype and phenotype has only just begun to be explored.
There is still almost no trait - no tendency to heart disease, no tendency to obesity, no stupidity, no height - I repeat - there is still almost no trait for which we can pinpoint its genetic origin.
Not that I really think that if I told you that the origin of genius is in the X gene on chromosome 7 you would know what to do with that information but really, today, I can't tell you such a thing as no one else can yet.
Naturally, the research is currently focused on things that seem more urgent and these are the genes whose deficiency leads to diseases.
This is a research that is easier to justify (although it is quite certain that there will be all kinds of people who will oppose the research on the genetic causes of genius, but also) because people want to prevent the birth of babies destined for a life of suffering.
Be that as it may, there is nothing essential that separates the geniuses from the rest of the people.
Just as there are those who run faster, or those who jump higher (really! Have you ever thought about the fact that there are people who can jump over the door of your house? Doesn't that seem amazing to you?) so there are also those who think faster and those who can concentrate better.
The opposite is true, Mr. Michael.
I say that certain animals must have qualities that humans have not developed due to different needs of development.
Your answer is far from satisfactory, what's more, you didn't even answer the questions I asked, but "poured" on a completely different topic.
If you really are a "serious" person as you say
Please answer the serious questions I asked instead of continuing to bash.
I will repeat them again so that there is no doubt.
What brought those animals to develop "superior" qualities than us humans?
Is it possible to learn and imitate this mechanism?
What is that evolutionary change that appeared in the geniuses of a generation that separated them from one man?
curious:
I don't know how you find the people on the street to ask them but serious people know this is not true.
Serious people also don't try to imply that someone doesn't know the answer to a certain question just after hearing him answer the question.
Your whole question is based on the assumption that humans have fundamentally different qualities from all animals, and as I have shown you - this assumption is incorrect.
Instead of making the silly claim that I am not an expert in the field, I suggest that you focus on the answer you received.
All I said is that I don't want to engage in speculation and conspiracies.
I am an ordinary person and not a scientist from the Technion, this information - that the person uses only a small part of the brain, is for me an "existing fact" and if you ask any person on the street they will tell you the same thing.
If for you it is different, you do not have to respond to this again, I left this detail and moved on to more focused questions.
If you don't know how to answer them, please leave it to the experts who do because it seems that your whole purpose is to defy and not have an in-depth discussion.
curious:
Shouldn't you replace "S" with "S"?
All the inventions I talked about are ones that the monkeys came up with themselves.
What they learned from us - like numbers and letters are things you also learn at home or at school - a person you leave alone in the field from Waldo Day would not know them.
The fact that you cannot decide what is known is a very difficult problem - especially when you use the phrase "it is known that..." regarding things that are not known, on the one hand, and you yourself say right now that you cannot decide if they are known
Mr. Michael, you are upset again...shooting words regardless of what is said
I wasn't talking about monkeys learning human traits, but about traits that animals developed during evolution separately from humans, such as the ability to change colors in a lizard, the orientation of birds when they cross continents and return home, bats that use ultrasonic frequencies, etc.
It seems that humans did not develop these abilities, but others that served them better for their survival.
Regarding the second part about brain abilities,
What is known or unknown I cannot decide,
And I really prefer not to get involved in conspiracies please.
It is very interesting to know, what do you think is genetically or physiologically different in those geniuses of our generation?
One curious:
Almost no characteristic of man is completely unique to him.
Each of its features has parallels (sometimes less elaborate) in the animal world.
Even animals such as monkeys and birds invent work tools and pass on the knowledge of their creation and use from generation to generation. That is why in some areas there are monkeys who know how to wash and salt the sweet potatoes they eat in sea water, in other areas there are monkeys who make a lance which they use (a branch which they sharpen) for hunting and more.
I have seen photographs of birds that know how to take iron wire and make a hook out of it to catch worms from the bottom of a glass bottle. I've also seen crows learn to drop nuts over a crosswalk, let cars crack them, then wait for a green light for pedestrians to pick up the cracked nuts.
In a very interesting experience, I saw a monkey solve a problem that I remember inventing as a child and asking my friends and not everyone solved it. We had a round hole in the yard intended for a collapsible laundry pole and next to it was a ping pong table. I asked my friends what they would do if the ball fell into the hole (which was about 10 cm deep and about two millimeters larger in diameter than the pingpong ball. I expected them to discover that you could just pour water into the hole and flood the ball, but only a few came up with the idea. About a month ago I saw how The monkey is shown a glass bottle, the shape of which did not allow the monkey to put his hand into it. The bottle was fastened to the fence of the cage and the monkey could not turn over. On the bottom of the bottle was a food item - I no longer remember what - that the monkey liked to eat. The monkey walked back and forth in the cage several times and looked really Like a man trying to solve a problem. Suddenly he straightened up, ran to the faucet, filled his mouth with water and emptied his mouth into the bottle. He did this several times until the food item floated at a height that allowed him to take it out.
There are many more examples of intelligence including learning sign language.
There are also examples of awareness of the laws of justice and morality, but I will be brief at the moment and will not elaborate.
In short - everything is there only, in some cases, in a slightly less sophisticated form, even in animals.
So much for your claim (which, in my opinion, has no basis in reality) regarding the uniqueness of human beings.
Oh - I forgot to tell you - there are also elephants who know how to draw - but really draw - not a modern painting but a painting with meaning - and this is even before monkeys and parrots who know how to count (monkeys even know how to put the numbers in order faster than humans!) and on and on.
By the way - the story about using a small percentage of the brain is completely unfounded and in my opinion is not true.
The subject has already been discussed here in one of the discussions and I will not detail it again but it is simply a belief that is spread especially by communicators and those who tell people to teach them to communicate using those unused parts of the brain.
In short - what you say is known is not known at all and it is interesting what criticism you passed on it before you decided it was known.
I tend to think that man is separated from the animal kingdom by being self-aware.
It is interesting how the other scientists (in relation to the majority, in Michael's response) explain the phenomenon of new and original ideas that pop up in our minds.
How do you explain geniuses of a generation like Leonardo, Galileo, Einstein, etc.?
What is the change that brought them to their discoveries and inventions?
I know there are animals that are capable of performing survival tasks that require supernatural abilities for humans but for those animals it is a trivial matter.
Like lizards that change colors or birds that find their way home from a distance, dolphins, bats, etc.
It seems to me that when humans learn to acquire the same "supernatural" properties of the marine world, this will really be an evolution of the "homo-sapiens"
It is known that we only use a small percentage of our brain.
If so, what is hidden in the rest of the unused brain?
curious:
The animals are written in the same language but the story written in each of them is different.
From the similitude - both in language and in the text, we learn about the closeness between them, but the closeness is usually not so great that any animal can grow any organ. By definition there are things in us that are not in a lizard and vice versa. Even a lot of them. This is not only about activating and silencing existing genes, but also changing genes and even creating new genes.
Regarding the human spirit - this is a really difficult question, but most scientists tend to think that it comes - simply - from the brain.
How did she come from there? Contrary to Kurzweil's predictions, I fear it will be a long time before we understand this.
Your description as if scientists move the wheels of progress is very relative. What is a precedent in the natural world anyway? There is no definition for this. When we talk about progress we mean the concept that man is at the center but in nature man has no special status.
It is true that man creates new species, but from the point of view of nature this does not mean progress and by the way - apparently man causes many more extinctions of existing creatures than the creation of new ones.
From the point of view of man - both the creation of useful animals (such as algae that create fuel) and the extinction of harmful creatures (such as bacteria of various diseases) constitute progress.
curious,
Regarding snakes with legs, it is possible - as Roy pointed out - to see the leg buds during the embryonic development of the snake:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex3
In addition, fossils of snakes with legs were found:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_761595298/a_snake_with_legs.html
And of course, sometimes even today a legged snake hatches/incubates (this phenomenon is called atavism):
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/09/snakes_and_legs.php
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1525-142X.2002.02033.x
————————————————————————————–
Adi
If you are still reading the responses to this news, can, and how, can I ask you a question that is not related to the topic, but related to the translation of the God Delusion?
I am the same "curious"... yes..
As I understand it, all living things are "written" in the same language.
The same building blocks that make us up also make up cats, for example, but in a different form of expression. As we have the information to grow a tail but it is muted, so the lizard also has the ability to grow a wing but does not do so until the given moment when it needs to use it.
There is something else that intrigues me and it is the "human spirit"..where do the ideas and thoughts come from. It's not so much on the subject but evolution has brought us to this very day for us to think and invent new things. Today, humans are the "catalyzers" that move the wheels of progress. Scientists create new varieties of flies, genetic clones and you know what else they will invent..
one,
You said it well: everything that has changed between the two dogs is simply a variation - a different version of the original. You can easily see it in the very general morphology common to both (four legs, two eyes, two ears, etc.).
And here is an interesting thing: similar evidence exists in the DNA of all living beings, showing that they are all variations of one another. All living creatures have DNA that is identical in many places, and it is possible to identify by it where one lineage split from the other and how long ago. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution.
So variation is really the basic idea of evolution. The Great Dane may not be able to sing unlike a Chihuahua, but we can sing unlike monkeys. Any variation in this case is in marginal details: in the more developed vocal cords, in the shape of the pharynx, etc. - but this allows us to sing. Nice variation, isn't it? According to the concept of variation, all creatures are simply variations of others.
As for the aviation idea, you are throwing out wrong assumptions here. Birds can see great even without delicate membranes. And if we are dealing with lizards, then any form of feathers (which are just unique scales) can help an animal slow down its fall speed, and this is the beginning of the daya. For the very initial stages, you don't need limbs that specialize in gliding or gliding. All that is needed is an initial change that will direct the animal to occupy a niche that was not occupied before, and in which it can gain an advantage over other animals. The more specialized evolution - the modification of the limbs that will result in perfect support for gliding/gliding/flight, and the other changes - will come later.
By the way, are you the 'curious' one from the previous questions?
Roy.
All I see between the two dogs is variation (a different version of the original) and not evolution (development into a new species).
If the Great Dane knew how to sing or fly or just walk upright it would be a different story..
As in the example with the flies, for example.
Regarding the idea of aviation, it is very interesting, but still in order to be successful, you need delicate membranes and again I return to the idea of the catalyst because during the gradual growth process of the membranes, the laths will not be able to try the new "concept" and will be slammed into the ground.
Only the day those limbs can support gliding will the lizard even learn the new trick.
What explains those moments of impulsive and unprolonged change over the years?
I fail to understand how the examples about the dogs prove the opposite of what I am saying. If you stop treating the species 'dog' as a unique definition and look only at the shape, you will see that there has been a very large morphological change in a few thousand years. It's evolution, any way you look at it.
But regarding your other question, which is really a wonderful question:
How did animals start to fly?
The answer is that here, too, there is an advantage to gradualism. A feathered lizard has a great advantage if it lives in a wooded environment and tends to climb trees (indeed, the fossils of Archipelatrix - the feathered dinosaur - that were discovered have sharp claws, unlike birds today, and they probably used them to climb trees).
If such a lizard falls from a tree, it can use its very primitive and imperfect wings to slow down the fall and even die. Even today there are 'flying' squirrels, which although not able to fly but can certainly see when they fall from the tree.
The change can be very gradual - a lizard with extra wide and long scales that allow it to slow down the speed of its fall when it falls from low trees (something that happens a lot when you're dodging crazies). As the scales widen and lengthen, becoming practically feathers, the lizard can live on higher trees without fear. In the end, the daya becomes a way of life for her, similar to the flying squirrels, and the body adapts itself in evolution - the bones become thinner and more hollow, the chest muscles become stronger, etc. From there it is only a small step to the 'real' aviation, which is also a kind of soaring and flapping the wings.
Good Day,
Roy.
I will not refer to the examples about the dogs because it simply proves the opposite of what you are trying to prove, in my naive eyes.
I want to understand, how animals started to fly.
How did a mouse turn into a bat or a lizard into a bird.
For me, to fly you need a very special and very precise anatomy. For such a process to happen in a certain animal, some kind of catalyst is needed to speed up the process because I see no advantage in a lizard with feathers or wings trailing on the ground and I'm sure it won't last 70 generations or even 7 generations.
The change must be intense and immediate for the advantage to really become an advantage.
curious,
First of all, I'm glad you're willing to question different areas. At the same time, from the wording of your questions and claims, I conclude (and may be inadvertently) that your knowledge about the theory of evolution is not broad. You may have heard about it in various places, but there is no substitute for a real study of the theory. I would highly recommend you to go to a university course on the subject, which exists in any self-respecting university. Usually you can also enter as a free listener, free of charge. Such courses will provide you with a very wide range of proofs and testimonies, which would be too short to expand on them all here. Most of them do not even require extensive biological knowledge in advance.
You can also read about evolution in various places on the web. The best site in English is http://www.talkorigins.org
Also in Hebrew there are several interesting links that I highly recommend reading:
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/creationist.html
http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/articles/article.asp?forum=938&a=63160&c=8470&sc=0&ssc=0
There are also fascinating books in Hebrew on the subject, such as 'Traces from the past' by Carl Sagan, or 'The Blind Watchman' by Richard Dawkins. Highly recommended.
And now for the questions you asked:
"On the one hand, the article talks about rapid evolution under natural conditions, but it will take researchers under laboratory conditions thousands of years to speed up processes in a lizard? "
The article talks about a 'rapid' evolution on the order of decades. Considering the time scale of evolution on earth, decades like them are like a blink of an eye in a person's life. But for a single person studying evolution, decades is a very long time. I'm sure no researcher wants to collect lizards for his lab and spend the next 40 years breeding one with the other in an attempt to end up with a lizard with degenerate legs. I'm also sure it can be done, but it will take much more time than most researchers in the field have.
On the other hand, we have other evidence that lizards became snakes during evolution. There are fossils of transitional stages - both of ancient lizards and of ancient snakes. It is also possible to refer to the hummet - a lizard with degenerate legs that lives today - as a transitional stage that still lives with us. The python is also a transitional stage - it has a pelvis, although its legs have already completely degenerated and disappear during embryonic development.
In a very general way, it is possible to create intentional mutations in animals that will cause them to be born without legs. It is not difficult to imagine that such a mutation also happened in nature, either in many transitional stages or all at once. Under the right conditions of adaptation to the environment, leglessness can prove to be equivalent to the presence of legs.
It is also important to explain that new species are not always created as a result of optimal adaptation to the environment. The Earth experienced many catastrophes in its lifetime, some of which wiped out more than 50% of the different species at that time. These mass extinctions left only a few individuals of the previous species alive, and any mutation in those individuals would have spread very quickly to the rest of the population.
We will continue:
"Regarding the experiment with the flies, you are basically saying that there is no development but only environmental adaptation. There are thousands (if not more) of subspecies of flies and in fact the researchers created another artificial one."
The evolution that the flies underwent in the laboratory under the artificial selection resulted in the creation of a new species of flies. Not a subspecies, but a new species.
When you so easily dismiss the flies as "another new fly", it is advisable to remember that Homo sapiens was also only "another ape-man walking on two" from the large group of Homo erectus (the upright man), Homo ergaster (the working man ), Homo Neanderthalis (the Neanderthal man) and many others. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the evolution we've gone through is very important, even though we're just "another subspecies" out of all the ancient human species.
For the following claim:
"According to my understanding of the world around me, mutations do not survive better but actually die at a young age. It is hard for me to agree with a theory that claims that this is precisely what promotes race. I am fully aware of natural selection and race improvement, but I do not buy the theory that races change shape from one to another and more through genetic errors."
Most mutations are indeed not beneficial, as you point out. At the same time, there are mutations that can give organisms survival and/or cultural advantages. In the case of breed improvement, the advantage in question is imposed by the breeder. The breeder simply selects the dogs with the desired small genetic errors and breeds them with each other.
If you do not 'buy' the theory that breeds change form through genetic errors, it is very difficult to understand how you accept the idea of improving the breed in dogs. Please pay attention to the following two pictures:
Great Dane: http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07/GiantDog_450x556.jpg
Chihuahua (especially apple-head): http://www.dogsindepth.com/toy_dog_breeds/chihuahua.html
The difference between the two, among other things, is the shape of the face and jaws, the length of the limbs, the sense of smell, hearing and sight. In the shape of the tail and the style of the fur, in their character, in the type of food they prefer to eat, in their tendency to get very different diseases, etc. Perhaps the most obvious difference is that the weight of an average Great Dane is estimated at 50 kilos, and an average Chihuahua weighs only 50 kilo. That's a XNUMX-fold difference in body mass, accepted by evolution. To say that it equates to the difference between a black person, short and fat, and between a thin and tall white person is a bit of an understatement in the degree of difference that was received.
Then again, it is very difficult for me to understand how you accept the idea of improving animals through evolution, but refuse to accept the idea that evolution can cause a change in the shape and characteristics of animals.
What more?
In previous articles in science, lizards were also described that underwent rapid evolution over 36 years on a small island, and the size and shape of their heads changed. They also developed new anatomical structures in the intestines.
But you might say here that the lizards still remain lizards. As problematic as this definition is, perhaps it reflects the real problem. A complete evolution from species to species can require many years - on the order of thousands of years or more. This is one of the reasons no researcher has taken it upon themselves to turn a lizard into a snake through evolution and natural selection. How do we know, then, that different species evolved from other species?
We know this from comparing their shape, from the similar genetics of many creatures, from molecular 'clocks' embedded in the genomes of species and from the rate of their mutations we can calculate the time that has passed since they split from other species. We know this from many fossil series that show how the whale evolved from an early mammal and how horses evolved from a dog-like mammal. And of course, fossils that also show transitional stages between the ancient ape-man and modern man.
All these evidences together, and many others, add up to one conclusion which is the theory of evolution. The evidence comes from all fields of science, and so far no evidence has been found to disprove the idea of evolution.
I would like to emphasize that everything I reviewed here, I wrote on the tip of the fork. If indeed the said things are of interest to you, I suggest that you continue reading on the websites and books that I suggested. If you decide to do so, I will be happy to answer more questions later.
Nice weekend,
Roy.
curious:
Observation is not science.
Observation is one of the tools in science - after all, you cannot know the results of an experiment if you do not observe it, you cannot even guess what experiments should be done if you do not observe reality and try to identify laws and patterns in it, you cannot begin to develop an insight into the human soul if you do not look inside and at people others etc.
Observation has an important part in scientific practice, but it is not science in itself.
Those who understand what science is know that there is nothing in it at all that is beyond any doubt and anyone who seeks knowledge beyond any doubt in science simply shows that he does not know what science is.
I've been spinning on this planet for a good few years now (the truth - they were really good!) and I've learned (by observation) to recognize patterns of behavior and discussion of people who are driven by prejudices and beliefs instead of logic.
I know one science and that is observation.
There are many unexplained phenomena
And there are many phenomena that were partially or lamely explained but were nevertheless sold to the masses as an existing fact.
I am trying to understand if this has really been proven beyond any doubt, why there are so many people who are against it and what is their interest.
I don't immediately dismiss people's opinions and rather try to understand how it can be that they really believe it.
curious:
Maybe I overreacted and I apologize for that but I was really impressed by your words that you are not looking for an explanation.
After all, I already put the link here before and you didn't read it.
Also sentences like "I don't buy the theory…." When it comes to a theory that is backed by countless evidence and beyond that it can be mathematically proven that it works (note - I'm not talking about "occurring in reality" but about "working" as a mechanism) does not imply an over-openness to be convinced by the facts.
I wish you would die.
Excuse me sir, why are you aggressive and dismissive? I'm just trying to understand and you just expressed a firm and rigid opinion about me.
I'll look at the link you sent anyway.
Good night.
curious:
The fact that you confused Atino means that Roy caused it.
There are millions of species on earth.
Here and there scientists see a case of evolution in one of them.
This is different from the experiment you describe in which you take a single species and expect it to evolve.
For some reason it doesn't seem to me that there is any argument that can convince you that you are so addicted to creationism of some kind that nothing will help.
If you want to read something about the differentiation of different species and the definition of the concept of species in this context, you are welcome to read the link I have already given in this discussion and many others:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Experiments carried out in the laboratory are also indicated here.
I'm sure it won't help but I don't mind trying.
You can also read the article about the lizards that was published here not long ago and not be convinced by it either.
Good time.
You are quite confusing. On the one hand, the article talks about rapid evolution under natural conditions, but it will take researchers under laboratory conditions thousands of years to speed up processes in a lizard?
Regarding the experiment with the flies, you are basically saying that there is no development but only environmental adaptation. There are thousands (if not more) of subspecies of flies and in fact the researchers created another artificial one.
According to my understanding of the world around me, mutations do not survive better but actually die at a young age. It is hard for me to agree with a theory that claims that this is precisely what promotes race.
I am fully aware of natural selection and race improvement but do not buy the theory that races change form from one to another and more through genetic errors.
Regarding the dogs, I don't see a difference between them as you declare..
I think aliens would even think of wolves and jackals as dogs.
The general form is preserved despite the variation. As a short fat black person will be identified as human just like a tall thin white person.
curious,
One of the definitions of a species is that it cannot mate with other species and produce fertile offspring. This definition is consistent with what the scientists did in the laboratory through the artificial selection they applied to the flies.
This species definition may not be good enough, but it is only one of many. Other definitions examine the morphology of the different species. In this case, the Great Dane and the Chihuahua clearly belong to separate species because their appearance and shape are so different from each other. If we had arrived as aliens on our planet, we would not have guessed that they belonged to the same species. And these dogs also evolved from one ancestor (thousands of years ago or less).
As for your second question, it is not possible to reproduce in the laboratory the conditions that would turn a snake into a legged one or a crocodile, simply because of the time span involved. You need a lot of small changes that will accumulate, and it will take many years of artificial pressures in the laboratory - maybe even hundreds of years. That's more time than the average researcher has.
Another way to bring about drastic changes is through mutations that affect control mechanisms of the body's development. As an interesting example of this, a researcher at the Technion makes random mutations in worms that cause them to lose critical organs in their bodies. I see no reason why a similar drastic mutation would not occur in the lizard, which would cause it to lose its legs. Under the right conditions, it is quite possible that such a mutation will also be preserved. But why do it in a lab at all? The theory of evolution is well proven even without someone causing the lizard to lose the Hox genes that control the formation of its limbs.
And for your last question -
The new flies were in no way superior to their ancestors. The very phrase 'shoes' is meaningless. They were simply more adapted to the choice imposed on them by the researchers. In other words, they adapted to their environment better than their ancestors.
It can be defined as 'shoes', but the only 'elevation' that was demonstrated in them is that they passed the selection that the researchers applied to them.
Hope I answered your questions,
Roy.
And one more thing about the flies..
Were the new flies superior in any way to their ancient ancestors?
Are flies that cannot mate with other flies not really flies anymore? Did the scientists create a new species of insect by mutation?
Is it possible to reproduce in the laboratory conditions that will turn a snake into a legged or crocodile?
Michael, sorry for the confusion, thank you very much for the link.
jewel:
Thanks for your response.
I will only mention that my name is Michael and not my father 🙂
By the way - every time someone says speciation or something implying it, I attach this link (so far it was to refute the words of opponents - this time it is to confirm the words of those who agree):
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Avi,
Regarding the retrovirus, you are of course right that what is integrated into the gene is DNA built on the template of the RNA of the virus, but as you said, the result is what I have characterized it for. Why did I choose retrovirus? No particular reason, that's what came to my mind at that moment. Of course, any virus that can become a virus, integrate into the DNA of a cell and remain there for many generations (in terms of cell cycles) has the potential to bring about a significant change in the structure of a gene, and therefore also its function (which can also be dysfunction).
Regarding the story of fish, armor and evolution: evolution manifests itself in the emergence of new species that are derived from previous species in a process known as speciation. To know if a new biological species has been created, it must be subjected to the well-known test, which means whether individuals from the new species, for example, those with armor, are able to mate with individuals without armor and produce fertile offspring. If reproductive isolation occurs, that is, there is no exchange of genetic material between individuals from the two instances (with and without armor), then it can be said that a new biological species has appeared, and indeed this is a private case of evolution. I don't know what is meant by those who speak of "elements of evolution". An increase in the frequency of a particular allele in the population due to natural selection pressure may be a step in evolution, but in itself does not constitute a full expression of evolution, unless individuals carrying this allele also become isolated in terms of reproductive capacity from individuals that do not carry it. In a nutshell, evolution is the sum of all the processes of speciation over time, and as we know, these processes happen all the time. Phenomena such as the "pigmentation" of the fish are first and foremost a very significant example of the power of natural selection to bring about changes in the frequency of alleles in the population - and as mentioned, in a slightly longer term, to lead to speciation.
Sorry I don't respond every day. I don't have enough time for that.
sparrow,
One of the definitions of evolution is changing the frequency of alleles in a population. Alleles are not identical genes, but different variations of genes.
Since there is a noticeable change in the prevalence of the alleles in the fish population, this is a clear case of evolution.
For comparison, you can think of the human population in the African region, where the genes that cause sickle cell anemia were identified following natural selection (because the disease protects against the malaria epidemic). A large part of the population there suffers from a relatively weak version of this genetic disease. This is also a type of evolution, which may ultimately separate two human species.
Avi:
To put things in perspective, we must admit that the story of the fish does not demonstrate everything that happens in evolution, but only a part.
To demonstrate everything, it is also necessary to create genes that were not in the population.
Of course there are also examples of this process but not in the fish story.
I pointed this out in a previous comment, and just as it is incorrect to say that the story does not demonstrate evolution (because natural selection is an essential part of evolution - precisely the part that creates the illusion of planning among the Iroquois), it is also not true to claim that it proves the existence of all the elements of evolution (precisely the part The randomness - the one that the disbelievers in evolution actually acknowledge exists - is missing in this example).
Aerox:
If I had shown you the solution I would have turned my words the day I presented the question to you into a lie.
I know it doesn't impress you because you can tell you're lying by the way your lips move or your fingers tap, but I don't usually do that.
You have the possibility, as I said, to make money (if you're right and lose if you're wrong) and you don't take advantage of it because you're afraid - in the secret of your heart you probably know you have no idea.
As I thought, Michael. You don't know the solution to your own puzzle. Otherwise you would have shown me where I was wrong. But you didn't, let it be...
By the way... If you had put money on solving the riddle, you would have lost a long time ago.
ERMAC may not understand the answer, but to all those he is trying to convince - evolution is the change of species through natural selection, so his argument is just quibbling.
Regarding the beginning of life. It is true that there are different theories but they are not relevant. Once primitive life was formed, evolution began to operate.
Aerox:
I am not writing this for you but for those you are repeating and trying to deceive with your false comment.
You gave a wrong solution.
When I presented the problem I said in advance that I would not present its solution because it serves me very well in identifying zeros and I do not want the solution to be published.
I explained to you how you can be convinced that I have a correct solution that is different from yours - I offered you to arrange the bet described in the problem and I agreed to put money on the matter.
If you are right, then I will lose the money, so if you believe you are right, you have no reason to avoid the matter.
You evade and invent lies only because you yourself do not trust your judgments enough to risk money on them. All you are willing to sacrifice for this degree of security is the respect of others which is probably worthless in your eyes.
My offer still stands (just like your brain)
a question.
A trait is expressed as a result of the genetic code or the environment.
Theoretically the same gene can be expressed in two (or more) different forms depending on the level of water turbidity.
Therefore theoretically there were no changes in the genes.
If so, then it is possible that there was no rapid evolution here? or evolution at all.
A few notes for the air-
"You see that Ermac is not ready for a logical argument and his goal is to move innocent people to repentance" - what kind of repentance? You are daydreaming.
The simplest definition of evolution is a change in the frequency of a genotype over time." - This is the definition of natural selection and not evolution. Natural selection only selects, not creates. And where did this genotype come from?
"Contradicting it is kind of like saying that we really fall but it doesn't demonstrate the force of gravity" - claiming that evolution is a fact is like claiming that "the spontaneous creation of a car is a fact".
"It is to remind him of the way in which I allowed him to prove that he has intelligence, on the one hand, and an understanding of probability, on the other hand." -I have already given a reasoned solution to your "logic riddle". And when will you give the solution to the "riddle"? You haven't even shown me where The imaginary "mistake".
'Too many comments' -
The commenter known as 'Point' has been writing comments in their knowledge for more than six months. The vast majority of the responses do not resemble the nonsense that 'Dos from Jerusalem' writes on Ynet. I find it hard to believe that the two are the same.
Regarding the whole debate about evolution, it really touches my heart. Evolution is a proven scientific theory that helps us understand the mechanisms of nature. The people who try to deny evolution without even understanding the theory about it, are causing a slowdown - if not a stop - of scientific progress. As an example we can cite the Soviet Union under Stalin's rule, where the tyrant decided that evolution is not 'communist' and therefore should be excluded from the fields of science in universities. All biological science in the Soviet Union froze as a result of this political decision.
Since there are signs of such a populist tendency in Western countries as well, I am always happy to publish news on the subject of evolution and increase public knowledge on the subject.
jewel:
Searching on Wikipedia, I saw that the reason why you talked about a retrovirus is the fact that it produces integrase, but it says that double-stranded viruses also do this. Therefore, the clarification is still necessary.
jewel:
I didn't want to disturb the flow of the discussion, so I sent her this response first.
Why did you write "retrovirus" and not just a virus?
In general, a retrovirus cannot become part of DNA because it is not made of DNA. What settles in DNA is its translation into DNA.
It is true that it achieves the same effect but, as we agreed, it is better to be precise.
This area is not my area of expertise, so I tend to believe that there is a special reason why you talked about retroviruses and that I am missing this reason.
can you elaborate
What's new:
As I have mentioned many times - Irvax I do not argue at all because an argument includes referring to the words of the other.
All his arguments (but all!) were answered until the last one, and the arguments against creation were also presented to him dozens of times.
The problem is that it doesn't affect him and therefore - after seeing that he doesn't refer to things, and since I myself don't want to get into an endless loop where I repeat the same story every time, I decided to settle for Kintor pointing out this custom of his.
My favorite Kintor (the truth is that it really amazes me how after so much time has passed since the day it was introduced, Irvax has still not been able to find an answer to it - which shows that the disconnect between it and the world's educated population is probably complete. Only because of the improbability of this phenomenon I might start to believe that there is God 🙂 ), is to remind him of the way I allowed him to prove that he has intelligence, on the one hand, and an understanding of probability, on the other.
Too many comments:
So you told us you don't understand what evolution is.
What else do you have to tell?
Oh - yes - you also told us that you see hidden things (after all, how do you know that lizards don't have new genes)?
You saw the hidden is indeed important to your conspiracy theory in relation to the commenters so there is really "proof" here.
You are right in your basic claim - there are too many comments here. The unnecessary comments are those written by people who do not understand the matter and all that is important to them is to show that the Torah is telling the truth. The interesting thing is that your argument is even with religious scientists who all accept the theory of evolution as proven and transfer God to other areas - ones that science has not yet cracked.
This was very prominent in Poppolitics a few days ago in a debate that arose between Menachem Ben who rejects evolution (in fact, rejects it in general) and a religious scientist who actually accepts it.
For "too many reactions" the simplest definition of evolution is a change in the prevalence of a genotype over time. Contradicting it is kind of like saying we are actually falling but it doesn't demonstrate gravity.
Why is it new if you mean Livna, they committed several other ethical offenses besides referring to Islamic sites, flooding for example and apparently also referring to such sites is against Israeli law, so I stopped them. ERMAC fills the part of the responses with nonsense and the problem with him as Roi defined not long ago, is that he ignores the answers he receives and repeats the same arguments, this is a less serious problem than a referral to a problematic site.
In my opinion, the best way to deal with him is to respond matter-of-factly to his claims and it is really better to focus more on the refutation of creationism.
"The devil is in the details"
Actually some readers don't understand the argument with ermac (who is a ..jewish, fundamentalist christian, pretender)
In any case, your constant defensiveness reminds me of an ancient tribe of savages who, whenever the enemy invades their territory, thunder the war drums until the enemy retreats, then return to normal and repeat again.
ermac in most of his cunning germinates you into this situation when he is actually freed from a rational logical debate and does whatever he likes courtesy of Avi Blizovsky.
The truth is that you always had answers, you turned the theory of evolution into a "Torah" I have never come across an answer as at this point in time we do not have the knowledge, after all that is the difference between Torah and theory..
Why didn't you deal with what Ermac is trying to do directly?
He tries to indirectly prove the supremacy of the Torah by negating the theory of evolution, and what is the alternative?
The alternative is the Torah and apparently in this area you decided not to deal with it even though it could easily be proven that intelligent creation is full of contradictions.
Avi Blizovsky, you see that Ermac is not ready for a logical argument and his goal is to move innocent people to repentance (if he is Jewish, or to convert to Christianity)
So why are you preventing other missionaries from appearing here?
either all or none
It turns out that there are some dudes here with severe OCD that every article about evolution makes them happy for a week...don't you have a life? Is that all you are interested in? A bunch of bitter…
And I am particularly upset by commenter 2, who appears on YNET as "Dos Jerusalem", and deliberately writes stupid comments in the name of religion, supposedly when it is clear to all of you that he is one of you - I would bet on one of the commenters who also comments with his full name and is a completely secular atheist. Due to the fact that he always responds with the entry of a new article (and later also responds to himself as a so-called enlightened secularist) I have even bolder hypotheses about his identity.
In the end, if it is not about the creation of new genes but only an increase in the frequency of a certain phenotype, it is not evolution - shout until tomorrow... why? Because evolution requires that there be a pool of genes, first of all, then you can run whatever you want on it. Much to your disappointment, in this example as well as in the example with the lizards, there are no new genes involved.
All the unnecessary words you throw in and all the references to websites that dedicate themselves to promoting Darwin's legacy, all of these are not uploaded or downloaded.
Aerox:
Until proven otherwise you do not understand what you are talking about.
The challenge I set before you allows you to prove otherwise.
It was a big jumble of words, meaningless, without sequence and with no understanding of what Adi even said.
to me-
hello ermac
One short example: a retrovirus that settles inside a gene is a huge change in the gene, which does not in the least contradict evolution." - This does not contradict but also does not prove anything. How did you come to this, since a retrovirus is the formation of a new gene that is part of a new gene complex in the human body? How is this Is it related to evolution? Are you not familiar with Dawkins' "I think he is similar to a rabbit" model, which tries to explain the formation of a gene in small steps? He even claims in the third chapter "accumulation in small steps, that even the addition of 10 amino acids is considered large. A gene cannot be formed in small steps. And why not? Because it needs an active site + control sites + the site that folds the protein into its spatial structure. Even if we take only the active site of 50 amino acids of a certain gene (in the active site, any mutation affects and there is no point in only some of the acids but all of them together, so that it is achieved the specific activity), this is a chance of one in 50^20 (a number with more than 50 zeros!). Conclusion - evolution will not happen probabilistically. And even the great evolutionists are aware of this problem, but it has never been solved. In short... clocks, cars and people are not created by themselves Until proven otherwise, the burden of proof is on the evolutionists. Period!
hello ermac
One short example: a retrovirus that settles in a gene is a huge change in the gene, which does not in the least contradict evolution. For all your other mistakes, my answers cannot replace a thorough and in-depth introductory course in molecular genetics, for example, one at the Univ. the open. I recommend that you study such a course in its entirety without shortcuts and without knowing better than any of your teachers. In any case, I see no point in continuing to argue with your current level of knowledge.
Many thanks to septem. It's good to know that someone reads my translations.
And for Roy, Michael and others - a little more about reverse evolution: we have an old concept that says the thing that the lovers of this combination want to express. This is called "secondary development". For example, the absence of legs in snakes is called "secondary absence", and thus we know that this absence occurred in evolution after the reptiles that were the ancestors of the ancient snakes had legs. No one should think that evolution has "gone backwards" (which could easily happen to many people). I'm guessing that if the armored fish researcher had simply written, simply, "a secondary development that is surprising in its speed" it would have sounded much less sexy and perhaps not received attention and exciting headlines - but at least the scientific explanation would have been paid off. Marginal consideration, obviously.
Adi
Oh, now I've even discovered that I'm doing you an injustice. We also have "Almost Like a Whale" thanks to you.
In addition, at Y.H. Brenner Regional High School, we use your book "Human Biology" in our studies for matriculation.
I am,
This is a good question, which was addressed in the original article. The researchers did not rely only on the phenotype (external form) of the normal growth of the carapace, but also checked the frequency of the alleles - the various genes - that cause the growth of the carapace among the population.
I sit and read Adi's words. I definitely liked them. And apparently, there are concepts like "reverse evolution" to confuse the layman.
Anyway, I couldn't shake the feeling that I recognized her name. So, I remembered that thanks to her we have The God Delusion in Hebrew!
Thank you!
They didn't think that maybe the infection had already damaged the growth of a normal embryo and only now that the infection is less the number of healthy embryos increased?
to me-
” It does not occur to me to enter into a debate about whether there is or is not evolution. It's like asking you to prove that you exist." - Is it not possible to prove to you that I exist? Is it possible to prove that a worm becomes a man?
But it is interesting to read in a person who claims that there is no evolution, sentences like "selection of existing alleles" etc. There are genes, there are alleles, there are mutations, there is selection, and all of these do - what? Are you playing backgammon?" - maybe backgammon or maybe rugby. But they certainly don't produce new genes, especially gene complexes. The question is where did all these genes come from. Evolution doesn't provide answers to that. It claims that everything happened in the past, so it can't be verified .
By the way, where did you find the claim that new genes are "created in small steps?" They can be formed in small, large and even gigantic steps." - Alas. You disbelieve in evolution and Dawkins? Do you claim that new genes appear all at once?
The small ones are probably the least significant in terms of the emergence of a new phenotype (except for certain diseases)
Successfully
Adi Marcuse-Hess-
Interesting name. Good luck….:)
Something for ermac or whoever: I don't think to get into a debate about whether there is or isn't evolution. It's like asking you to prove you exist. But it is interesting to read in a person who claims that there is no evolution, sentences like "selection of existing alleles" etc. There are genes, there are alleles, there are mutations, there is selection, and all of these do - what? Playing backgammon?
A short recommendation, probably unnecessary if you consider your unique interpretation of alleles and genes - you should read only the introductory chapter in the book "Almost like a whale" by Steve Jones, which amazingly describes a very rapid evolution of the HIV virus. You may not be convinced, but you will have to find new occupations for your alleles.
By the way, where did you find the claim that new genes are "created in small steps?" They can be created in small, large and even giant steps. The small ones are probably the least significant in terms of the emergence of a new phenotype (except for certain diseases)
Successfully
Adi Marcusa-Hess
jewel,
You are right that it is advisable to avoid scientific terms that mean one thing and vice versa. At the same time, as long as it is a correctly defined nomenclature, I see no real problem with its use among the scientific community. I believe that similar to the term 'reverse osmosis', the researchers who use this term know their craft and their profession. I find it hard to believe that a professional who talks about 'reverse osmosis' believes that it is a simple osmosis process, just as I find it hard to believe that an evolutionist who talks about 'reverse evolution' implies that evolution is directional. I do not believe that we are raising a generation of scientists who do not understand the meaning of abbreviations. This seems to me to be too extreme a conclusion from the evidence you bring.
In any case, I agree that it is better to use more general terms, if only for the sake of bridging the gap between scientists who work in the field and everyone else.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
jewel:
Your claim in this response is different from the claim "Whoever uses the phrase "reverse evolution" even if he is an important researcher, does not understand what evolution is" with which you opened your previous response and to which I responded.
I agree with you that there may be people who will be confused by the expression "reverse evolution" (even in this discussion we encountered people (actually one person with a deliberate split personality) who are confused by much simpler things) and that it is desirable, therefore, to avoid its use.
To Michael and Roy, I oppose the addition of reverse evolution, because it introduces a wrong conception that is very problematic. It implies as if there is one specific direction for evolution (Yanish, "direct evolution") which is obviously not true. "A change opposite to a change that happened in the past" - this is not reverse evolution, this is evolution.
It reminds me of expert engineers, who talk casually and with complete confidence about "reverse osmosis" which is also a meaningless combination. All they want to say is that they apply counter-pressure to the osmotic pressure, which overcomes the osmotic pressure and allows the water to move from a concentrated environment to a mixed environment, but this is not reverse osmosis or shoes. This is the movement of water at a pressure opposite to the osmotic pressure (and therefore requires a lot of energy).
Regarding the respected journal in which reverse evolution is mentioned, unfortunately this does not reassure me at all. Irresponsible negligence in wording is a growing phenomenon in places you wouldn't believe you would find it. What would you say about an incredibly respectable genetics book, which all students at US universities study from and which was just translated (by) for the Open Univ., and they don't bother to be careful in it, in describing the mechanisms of transcription and translation of genes, to distinguish between a gene and the protein produced by the gene? The expert thinks he is "abbreviating" the obvious, but the student, who is not knowledgeable, finds himself hopelessly confused. What will a first-year biology student think when he reads about "reverse evolution"? Is there "direct evolution"? From many "obvious" shortcuts and assumptions that the experts They do it to themselves, raising a generation that learns about contradictory concepts without knowing what they say. Like the monks in the Middle Ages who copied Aristotle's writings without understanding what was said in them.
Friends:
Irvax gave his response the title "Another Nisionchik".
Are we allowed to hope that if we don't pay attention to his words (just as he doesn't pay attention to ours) he will stop harassing us?
Another experiment-
Ermac claims there is no evolution. He backs up his claim with a multitude of requirements for proof, mainly from probabilistic genetics about the inability of new gene complexes to form." - True. Try to go from sentence to sentence in the experiment I proposed.
The theory of evolution has already been well proven in a wide variety of cases. We will introduce three of them quickly:
1. The rapid evolution of lizards that were moved to different islands and developed different behavior, different morphology and new anatomical structures that helped them digest the different food on the new island." - Incorrect. The changes that occurred (head size and bite strength) are changes in existing genes. Regarding the cyclic valves - no It is detailed whether a new gene regenerated there or not, so it is not possible to examine it. In my opinion, there is also some change of a functioning gene and not the formation of a new active site + new control sites.
2. The back-and-forth evolution of minnows presented in the above-mentioned article." - as above. No new gene was regenerated there. It is a matter of selecting existing alleles - the gene that determines the color of the fish.
3. Evolution of a bacterium capable of breaking down nylon." - As far as I know, this is an exchange of plasmids and not a frameshift mutation (as some claim. And even if a frameshift mutation did occur, this disproves the model of gene formation in small steps).
See the counterarguments here-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
So…
We have here on the one hand proven evidence for the correctness of the theory, and on the other hand a dispute about the mechanisms. In Ermac's opinion, the whole theory (which has already been proven in many experiments) should be discarded because the mechanisms are not supposed to allow it." - There is no evidence. I explained why. By the way... what about the link to the article on changing the chromosomes?
I once told about the man who entered a zoo, saw a giraffe and said "It's impossible! There is no such animal!”?
If not then here:
One man entered a zoo….
I read the things that Ermac writes, and I feel a little sorry for him.
Why?
Ermac claims there is no evolution. He backs up his claim with a multitude of requirements for proof, mainly from probabilistic genetics about the inability of new gene complexes to form.
So let's sort things out, and separate for a moment between the theory of evolution and the mechanisms that lead to evolution.
The theory of evolution has already been well proven in a wide variety of cases. We will introduce three of them quickly:
1. The rapid evolution of lizards that were transferred to different islands and developed different behavior, different morphology and new anatomical structures that helped them digest the different food on the new island.
2. Back-and-forth evolution of minnows presented in the above article.
3. Evolution of a bacterium capable of breaking down nylon.
The theory of evolution has proven its existence. Ermac can philosophize a lot about the difference between different species but the fact is that we constantly see species that are on the way to splitting into new species.
Ermac's real controversy is with the mechanisms. He claims that since the mechanisms proposed for evolution are not understandable or reasonable to him, the whole theory falls apart.
So…
Here we have on the one hand proven evidence for the correctness of the theory, and on the other hand a dispute about the mechanisms. According to Ermac, the whole theory (which has already been proven in many experiments) should be discarded because the mechanisms are not supposed to allow it.
And here is the beautiful thing: reality is neither wrong nor lying. If we see proven cases of evolution, then it exists. If Ermac is not ready to accept the accepted mechanisms - whether due to a lack of understanding, whether through stubbornness - then it is his problem, and it is a shame that he shares it with other people as well. Just as relevantly, he could argue that the theory of gravitation is completely wrong, since he was never able to find the G point.
So yes, we have definitely exhausted the section of 'evolution for and against'. The facts speak for themselves, and so does Ermac.
By the way... I think we've exhausted the "evolution for and against" section. I'm quite tired of endless debates and water-milling. Who wants to believe in the spontaneous creation of a clock, shame on him.
to roi-
". What Ermac asked for as proof of evolution, he got. "- Not true. You failed to find evidence for the formation of a gene complex. Even the different number of chromosomes did not provide evidence that this is not the desired assumption (I saw with my own eyes how researchers claim that an event that happened in the past is considered proof for the present - for example, in the union of 2 chromosomes into one chromosome)
Furthermore, for every case I have presented here, many others can be found in the scientific literature. His quest for finding a 'new gene complex' is delusional and has nothing to do with evolution." - Blessed are the ears that heard this. So how exactly was man created? Not through the creation of genes? Isn't your body made of gene complexes? Do you disagree with the great evolutionists?
"There will also not be such a gene complex as he defines it here. Almost every gene that receives a new function today will already be based on another gene or on a metabolic pathway that has changed its action." - And how was this previous gene created? A previous gene, of course. And how was it created? You must reach some beginning.
"Even evolution from a mouse to an elephant would not be evolution according to this criterion, because every new gene in the elephant is based on a gene that has undergone a small change in the mouse, or on a control mechanism that has changed slightly." which claims that a new gene is created by duplicating an existing gene and turning it into a new one.
Why is this similar? To the formation of a new coherent sentence, from an old sentence. Evolutionary biologists are aware of the fact that the chance of a new functional gene appearing all at once is zero. You can read about this in the book "The Blind Watchmaker" chapter three "Accumulation in small steps" and prove that even a jump of 10 acids is huge This led to the invention of the small steps model.
And what is the problem? That there are no small steps between genes. Only a big step can create new functionality. This is because it is not enough for the active site to change (which sometimes consists of 50 acids that have no taste for just a few of them but all of them together), the control sites of various kinds must also change. And that is not enough , the sites that fold the protein into the spatial structure must change. That is why there is also a huge difference in non-homologous genes. Conclusion - there are no small steps between gene and gene = evolution will not be possible probabilistically.
For example, try going from the sentence-
The circular Azrieli tower was built in the center of Tel Aviv in 1997
to the trial-
Shalom Meir Tower was built in south Tel Aviv in 1965
Try to go through small steps of changing a letter or two from sentence to sentence. While maintaining its integrity and ability to understand. The analogy is similar to changing a relatively short gene to a new gene.
And now, let's take a moment to look at what went on here:
Yes, the flies no longer mated with the original population. A new species was created.
His answer: What is the genetic difference that occurred in them? "- That's right. Maybe the flies were directed by the researchers not to mate? Or did something else happen to me? Why wouldn't they mate with them? At least I'm asking questions with a cautious eye.
What does it matter? He demanded that they couldn't mate with other flies as proof of evolution, and that's what happened. But he is trying to make nonsense demands again with his 'new gene complex'. And of course, he claims that - 'they are still flies', completely ignoring the fact that even among the flies there are hundreds of species that are very different from each other." - True, but they are still classified as flies.
Yes, a new species was created with a different number of chromosomes.
His answer: Well, they must have watched the requested offer. Then he asks to bring clearer references -=from the scientific article itself=- which he didn't even bother to read. "-Where is the link to the article? Does it detail what exactly happened?
Yes, the lizards behave differently, just as he demanded.
His answer: let's say.
What a beauty! He is willing to accept it! But, as we will see immediately, this is not a proof of evolution, even though he himself defined it as such." - I did not say that this is a proof of evolution, but only one of several conditions.
Now, please pay attention. The slap reaches its peak. After ignoring every answer given to him, Ermac adds the winning sentence, which explains why he does not support evolution:
"Evolution offers no evidence at all!" - it really offers no unequivocal evidence for which no other interpretation can be found. Everything is conjecture.
I have already expanded enough on the evidence for evolution why it is not evidence at all.
Avner:
Regarding humans, it seems to me that Aya Seter's answer is correct (although I would not include intelligence in the matter).
Regarding the differences between different species and the definition of differentiation into different species in general, you may find interest in the following link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
I'm with you on the Ben-Ner question
A. Ben-Ner
The definition for that species is that they are able to produce fertile offspring.
All humans belong to the same species and are capable of producing fertile offspring. Even a mating between human races that were separated ten thousand or tens of thousands of years ago (Indians, Aborigines and even the late Tasmanians - the last of whom were exterminated by the Australian settlers) was a normal mating with the "white man", that is, it resulted in fertile and normal offspring. In short - we are all the same and excel in the same intelligence - even cultures that seem "primitive" to us.
I have a question for everyone involved in evolution and genetics:
Are there, as far as any of you are aware, any human races according to KDA that the genetic difference between them is such that they can no longer mate and produce offspring
shared Or more precisely: what is the critical component of genetic variation which
If it exists, pairing will not be possible. By the way, it seems to me that there is also some intermediate situation. For example, a donkey and a horse can produce offspring, but these are not fertile.
ermac, are you a real idiot, or are you playing her?
I have no intention of starting an argument here. What Ermac asked for as proof of evolution, he got. Furthermore, for every case I have presented here, many others can be found in the scientific literature. His quest for finding a 'new gene complex' is delusional and has nothing to do with evolution. Nor will there be such a gene complex as he defines it here. Almost every gene that receives a new function today will already be based on another gene or on a metabolic pathway that has changed its function. Even evolution from a mouse to an elephant would not be evolution according to this criterion, because every new gene in the elephant is based on a gene that has undergone a small change in the mouse, or on a control mechanism that has changed somewhat.
And now, let's take a moment to look at what went on here:
The fact that the troll copies the answers to give the illusion of volume to his response, and then tries to ignore them is a common demagogic method with him. But he got his answers, and I'll summarize them as follows.
Yes, the flies no longer mated with the original population. A new species was created.
His answer: What is the genetic difference that occurred in them?
What does it matter? He demanded that they couldn't mate with other flies as proof of evolution, and that's what happened. But he is trying to make nonsense demands again with his 'new gene complex'. And of course, he claims that 'they are still flies', completely ignoring the fact that even among the flies there are hundreds of species that are very different from each other.
Yes, a new species was created with a different number of chromosomes.
His answer: Well, they must have watched the requested offer. Then he asks to bring clearer references -=from the scientific article itself=- which he didn't even bother to read. Lucky he is not biased. It's a shame he doesn't try to read about the evolution of wheat and barley, for example.
Yes, the lizards behave differently, just as he demanded.
His answer: let's say.
What a beauty! He is willing to accept it! But, as we will see immediately, this is not a proof of evolution, although he himself defined it as such.
Now, please pay attention. The slap reaches its peak. After ignoring every answer given to him, Ermac adds the winning sentence, which explains why he does not support evolution:
"Evolution offers no evidence at all!"
Indeed, to those who close their ears and refuse to consider any evidence, no evidence can really be offered.
to roi-
I doubt if he himself knows what a 'gene complex' is. If he means a complex of genes that code for proteins that cooperate in some metabolic pathway, then there is no real difference between a mouse and an elephant, because both have almost exactly the same 'gene complexes'. So in Ermac's opinion, even if a mouse turns into an elephant, this will not be evidence of evolution." - Not cute. I mean the creation of new mechanisms that are not homologous to anything. For example, the circulatory system, which was supposedly invented at some point in evolution. It includes such and such components that did not exist before. By the way... The stomach of the mouse is also not the same as the stomach of the elephant.
And yet, he asked for some evidence of evolution here. We will go one by one.
Inability of reproduction of a creature with the source population:
It was already demonstrated in the laboratory in a famous experiment in which selection was imposed on a population of flies. After about seventy generations, the descendants could no longer mate with the original population." - Why couldn't they? After all, they both remained flies. So... why can a Chinese person mate with an African person? What is the genetic difference that occurred in the flies?
"Different behavior :
It was demonstrated in one of the latest articles in 'Yaden' about evolution, where lizards are described that, due to rapid evolution, completely change their behavior. Instead of being territorial and solitary, they become sociable to other lizards and do not attack them or maintain their own territories. I don't remember that they changed their behavior, but let's say.
Different number of chromosomes:
"A new species of Fireweed was created as a result of the doubling of the number of chromosomes (something that happens a lot in plants)," - did you actually observe the doubling of the chromosomes or is this an assumption? Here is a clearer reference so that we understand what happened there.
"Ermac insists, again and again, on rejecting an entire theory that has been supported by a wide range of evidence, because even when evolution occurs and he witnesses it, he is unable to find his same 'new gene complex'" - perhaps because the formation of a new gene complex was never predicted? Maybe because evolution offers no evidence at all?
Moderator,
You're welcome. You are welcome to use it whenever you want.
I highly recommend the site http://www.talkorigins.org In it you can find further explanations and reasoned and detailed responses to the creationists' claims.
Thanks to Roy Cezana for his latest, in-depth, and scholarly response.
I definitely intend to use your comment in my war on fools.
For those not yet familiar with Ermac / Camre, or his various aliases, he likes to roam the forums here asking the same questions over and over and yelling the same shouts over and over. When answering his questions, the most intelligent response he gives is in the style,
"so what? It is also written in the Torah that X was created from Y!"
or,
"Great wisdom. So what if a mouse became an elephant, there is no creation of a gene complex here that did not exist before!"
I doubt if he himself knows what a 'gene complex' is. If he means a complex of genes that code for proteins that cooperate in some metabolic pathway, then there is no real difference between a mouse and an elephant, because both have almost exactly the same 'gene complexes'. So in Ermac's opinion, even if a mouse turns into an elephant it will not be evidence of evolution.
And yet, he asked for some evidence of evolution here. We will go one by one.
Inability of reproduction of a creature with the source population:
It was already demonstrated in the laboratory in a famous experiment in which selection was imposed on a population of flies. After about seventy generations the offspring could no longer mate with the original population.
(Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. )
It was also demonstrated in plants, as we will expand on in two sections.
It also continues to be demonstrated in many populations, where the process of differentiation into a new species is currently in advanced stages, such as five new fish species in Lake Ngobego.
(Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348)
Different behavior :
It was demonstrated in one of the latest articles in 'Yaden' about evolution, where lizards are described that, due to rapid evolution, completely change their behavior. Instead of being territorial and solitary, they become sociable with other lizards and do not attack them or maintain their own territories.
Different number of chromosomes:
A new species of Fireweed was created as a result of the doubling of the number of chromosomes (something that happens a lot in plants, in which the number of chromosomes is much more ploidy than in animals). This new species also cannot reproduce with the original population.
(Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719)
So all that remains is a 'new gene complex', which we have already explained is not a correct definition. Ermac insists, again and again, on dismissing an entire theory supported by a wide range of evidence, because even when evolution occurs and he witnesses it, he cannot find his same 'new gene complex'.
jewel,
I'm not familiar with the concept of 'reverse evolution' either, but I chose to use the researcher's own words here. I guess she decided to use this term to define the changes that have been 'overturned' in a relatively short period of decades.
As a valid modifier, the concept of reverse evolution appeared in the scientific article itself many times. The article was published in the respected scientific journal, Current Biology. This journal undergoes strict peer review, and they would certainly reject the concept if it did not fit the circumstances.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
For septem-so please, Camre, define for us when something will be considered "evolution", for you"-
a) Formation of a gene complex system that did not exist before.
b) Inability of reproduction of a creature with the source population.
C) Different behavior.
d) Chromosome number is different.
For my part, try to prove only section A. Good luck.
jewel:
You overdo it!
The use of the phrase "reverse evolution" here is only meant to illustrate the fact that the change is the opposite of a change that happened in the past. nothing else. The attempt to attribute to Roy a lack of understanding in the matter is simply ridiculous.
Whoever uses the phrase "reverse evolution" even if he is an important researcher, does not understand what evolution is. This combination is bullshit. Evolution, by definition, is biological species change that occurs subject to natural selection. Any change of this type in the outline of this study is simply an evolutionary change according to the accepted definition. The fact that minnows didn't have armor, and now they do, shows the power of natural selection. This is another discovery, one of millions, of evolution. point. Certain fish that live all their days in bodies of water in underground caves are blind. Remnants of what was in their ancient past are with them under the surface of the skin. No one ever thought of calling the absence of eyes, reverse evolution. The same is true for snakes - they evolved from ancient reptiles with legs. This is not "reverse evolution" either. The use of this silly phrase only indicates the great difficulty that most people have in properly understanding the theory of evolution.
we started?
So please, Camre, define for us when something does count as "evolution", for you.
camera:
No evolution occurred when you reversed the order of the letters in your nickname. You remain the same troll you were. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms in evolution and mutation is another mechanism. It is true that (probably only) natural selection worked here, but since natural selection is part of evolution, evolution took place here (or, in your language, evolution)
No evolution took place here. Evolution claims that multi-gene systems are created in a gradual process. A new gene is not even created here. It is all about natural selection of an existing gene with several different variations (alleles). Natural selection only selects but does not create.
Michael, yes I meant the rhinoceros skin. It was a joke.
good week.
Toyotas. Small, nervous and biting...
The intention, of course, was trots. thanks for the correction.
Roy.
There is no doubt that the Toyotas are a cruel predator, it's a shame that the article does not specify whether it is a Toyota Corolla or the real Helix 🙂
I am amazed every time the superhuman ability of the religious to lie to themselves with a determined forehead.
September:
OK, maybe I didn't understand. You only talked about Lamarck in relation to the rhinoceros skin, right?
September:
Why do you say that Mark was not wrong?
This is a completely normal choice.
And Mark wasn't completely wrong either. My mother sometimes claims that she contracts the process in which I develop rhino skin.
Very nicely, the fish underwent rapid evolution and adapted themselves to the polluted environment, and then underwent reverse evolution when the environment was no longer polluted. And everything is below our poor.
I would like to refer you to an article recently published on the website - Evidence for evolution: new anatomical structures in lizards in 36 years
It turns out that it happens all around us all the time.
Enough with the nonsense. God saw that the water was murky and changed the protection to fish. This is explicitly stated in the Torah: "And the Spirit of God hovers over the surface of the water."
When will the scientists repent? How can they not see the truth in front of their faces.
Super interesting!
Thanks.