Evolucija je teorija in ne dejstvo

> Obstojnejša forma preživi.

> Jaz bi temu rekel kar ToE.

Ja, to je zanimivo! Kako pravzaprav vse nekako izhaja iz logike. Nekako, drugače kot je, ne more biti.

Alternative so preprosto absurdne.

Mah, ne moreš dokazovati kreacionizma z iskanjem napak ali pomanjkljivosti v evoluciji. Evolucija ima (kljub prizadevanjem Latrodectusa in Creationista, da bi dokazala nasprotno) precej trdne temelje. V nasprotju s kreacionizmom, kjer imam občutek, da gre res bolj za vero v vsemogočnega stvaritelja, kot pa za neka dejstva. Mislim, ne moreš zaradi tega, ker nekje domnevajo, da so kamnine precej mlajše od prejšnjih ugotovitev (kar je še vedno zgolj in le domneva), potegniti zaključka, češ to je pa dokaz za kreacionizem.

Hja, Boga imaš lahko, čeprav podpiraš Darwina.

Majhne krščanske cerkve v ZDA pa nimajo drugega raison d'etre, kot dobesedno razlago Svetega Pisma. Edinole s tem se lahko legitimrajo naspram RKC ali Anglikanske cerkve. Ker kaj češ bit en Kveker? Zakaj ne bi bil kar lepo Katoličan? Moraš imeti razlog za to.

Dobesedno sprejemanje Svetega Pisma, pravi nauk, je edino, kar te eventualno legitimira. Sicer si kot Kveker, Metodist ... redundanten!

Odtod Kreacionizem kot gibanje.

Nova, boljša religija za kreacioniste: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Evolucija JE inteligentni dizajn. Najinteligentnejši možni, kakor EA4 tipčki neumorno trdimo.

Ko evolucija naakumulira dovolj computinga, potem se zdi, da bi se "dalo boljš, kot na urajmanje" - vendar je to le iluzija. Vsak drug algoritem je zevoluiral in čepi na lovorikah evolucijskega. Na lovorikah ali na akumuliranem computingu svojega algoritemskega prednika.

Tudi dobri Bog, ki bi v 6 dneh ustvaril tale svet, bi moral prej iti skozi nek evolucijski proces, preden bi se tako pogospodil. Na račun svoje trial&error zgodovine.

podbevna:
Se v celoti strinjam.

V eni novici je Thomas opozoril na še eno presenetljivo dejstvo evolucije, ki se ga splača pogledat:
Rapid evolution

-> Evolucije ne moremo zavirati.

Ni res! Evolucija ne poteka linearno. Priredi briljantno(brez raznih stvari kot so virusi itd...) okolje ljudem in jo boš skoraj ustavil za to vrsto.

> Priredi briljantno(brez raznih stvari kot so virusi itd...) okolje ljudem in jo boš skoraj ustavil za to vrsto.

Evolucija bo še vedno potekala, sicer neopazno, ampak bo. Populacijski dedni material se bo s časom zaradi napak v repliciranju popestril. Sicer počasi, ampak vseeno se bo.

Ja.

Ti si mau zmeden, ain. Nakladaš oslarije.

> BAkterija Flagellum izpodbije teorija DArwina

Ta je že ena. Sicer je slovnica tako slaba, da niti ni povsem gotovo, kdo kaj izpodbija. Samo si najbrž mislil, da je Darwinova teorija spodbita s tisto bakterijo. Kako in zakaj?

Mah, ne se trudit odgovarjat. Tako ali tako nisi sposoben dati kakšnega konkretnega odgovora. More blues, only.

> BAkterija Flagellum izpodbije teorija DArwina

Dawkins ma vas rad! :)

(edit za one, ki ne vedo:Pa s tem ne mislim da izpodbija Darwina... le nadaljuje v njegovi smeri)

gzibret pa si iskal , zakaj bi ti jaz moral podajati info. Ti si dvomljivec.. raziskuj ..

ajin kaj pa praviš na evolucijske algoritme?

no da se ne boš trudil in iskal po netu kako evolucijski (kamor spadajo genetski) algoritmi ne posnemajo evolucije: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp

Če par let programiraš s temi zadevami je zgornji link kot kakšna komedija. Rajt Thomas?
Žal pa enim sveta resnica.

Aja, tole temo sem videl komaj zdaj in sem se spomnil enega kar zanimivega članka o "intelligent design" kreacionizmu iz eSkeptic newsletterja:
"God & Evolution:
Intelligent Design Theory,
George W. Bush & the Question of God
by Michael Shermer

Intelligent Design (ID) creationism has resurfaced in the news again after President George W. Bush’s remarks were (mis)taken by IDers to be a solid endorsement by the president and his administration for the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms. There was considerable media hype over the story, and I did a number of interviews, including a live debate on CNN with lead Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski. As this story unfolded, however, I discovered (to no great surprise) that IDers, along with many in the media, and pundits on both the right and the left, greatly exaggerated Bush’s remarks.

On Monday, August 1, Bush gave an interview at the White House to a group of Texas newspaper reporters in which he said that when he was governor of Texas “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.” When a reporter asked for his position today on whether ID should be taught alongside the theory of evolution, Bush replied that he did “so people can understand what the debate is about.” But when pressed as to his opinion on whether ID is a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, Bush wisely equivocated:

I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Well of course, but that’s a different question.

So, the claim by IDers and several Christian groups, along with complaints by liberals that President Bush endorses ID, is exaggerated. In fact, Bush’s science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, said in a telephone interview with the New York Times that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” He added that the president’s comments should be interpreted to mean that ID be discussed not as science but as part of the “social context” in science classes, and that it would be “over-interpreting” Bush’s remarks to conclude that the president believes that ID and the theory of evolution should be given equal treatment in public school science courses.

When a reporter from Time magazine asked for my opinion about whether one can believe in God and the theory of evolution, I replied that, empirically speaking, yes you can, the proof being that 40 percent of American scientists profess belief in God and also accept the theory of evolution, not to mention the fact that most of the world’s one billion Catholics believe in God and accept the theory of evolution. But then this reporter wanted to know is if it is logically consistent to believe in God and the theory of evolution. That is, does the theory of evolution — if carried out to its logical conclusion — preclude belief in God? This is a different question. My answer appeared in truncated form in an Opinion Editorial that ran in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, August 7, under the title “Why God’s in a Class by Himself.” This was the editors’ title choice, and it is an interesting one considering what I have to say on the subject. Here is my longer answer.

You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence. This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. If you attempt to reconcile religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity because for any question about nature — the origins of the universe, life, humans, whatever — if your answer is “God did it,” a scientist will ask, “How did God do it?, What forces did God use? What forms of matter and energy were employed in the creation process?” and so forth. The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?

One could argue that God is the laws and forces of nature, which is logically acceptable, but this is pantheism and not the type of personal God to which most people profess belief. One could also argue that God created the universe and life using the laws and forces of nature as his creation tools, which is also logically fine, but it leaves us with additional scientific questions: which laws and forces were used for to create specific natural phenomena, and in what matter were they used? how did God create the laws and forces of nature? A scientist would be curious to know God’s recipe for, say, gravity, or for a universe or a cell. For that matter, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask: what made God, and how was God created? How do you make an omniscient and omnipotent being? Finally, one could argue that God is outside of nature — super nature, or supernatural — and therefore needs no explanation. This is also logically consistent, but by definition it means that the God question is outside of science and therefore religion and science are separate and incompatible.

One more analogy may help make the point. In my January, 2002, Scientific American column, entitled “Shermer’s Last Law,” I modified Arthur C. Clarke’s famous “Third Law” (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic) thusly: Any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable from God. God is typically described by Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent. Since we fall far from the mark on these traits, how could we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely, from an ETI who, relative to us, has them in copious amounts? Thus, we would be unable to distinguish between absolute and relative omniscience and omnipotence. And if God is only relatively more knowing and powerful than us, then by definition God would be an ETI!

Therefore, when Intelligent Design Theorists use science to go in search of their God, what they will find (if they find anything) is an alien being capable of engineering DNA, cells, complex organisms, planets, stars, galaxies, and even universes. If we can engineer genes, clone mammals, and manipulate stem cells with science and technologies developed in only the last half century, think of what an ETI could do with, say, 10,000 years of such science and technology. For an ETI a million years more advanced than us, engineering the creation of planets and stars will be doable. And if universes are created out of collapsing black holes, which some cosmologists think is highly likely, it is not inconceivable that a sufficiently advanced ETI could create universes at will.

Since IDers say they make no claim on who or what the intelligent designer might be, I contend that if they continue to try to reconcile their religion with science the end result can only be the discovery of an extra-terrestrial intelligence and the naturalization of their deity. "

Hvala, snow.

Totalen crap, ajin, totalen crap!

http://www.terradaily.com/news/life-05z...

Hihi.

ajin čigavo DNA boš analiziral? in s čim primerjal? misliš na sekveniranje najbrž a?

v angliji v industrijskem predmestju so nastale sive vešče in črnih
zato da se lažje skrijejo na betonskih stenah

črnih pa ni več (so izumrle)

to je recimo en dokaz za evolucijo


in pa tole:




tako da evolucija se je dogajala zelo počasi

nekateri so pa obstali na enakem - kot tista ženska gori (samozadostna in zadovoljna z stanjem v katerem je - gospodinja - ali "kreacionisti")

In kako to da recimo nekatere vrste kot so zelva in druhe vrste so ostale nespremenjene milijone( nevem tocno, ampak dolog casa) let

glej sliko ženske na kolenih zgoraj

pač ustreza okolju v katerem je, in zato se ne spreminja več (ne napreduje)
neke vrste idealna oblika za nišo v kateri se nahaja in v kateri išče svoj življenski prostor

In recimo kako to da antilopa ki po rodnosti prekasa geparda ni hitrejsa od geparda, potem takem bi ga mogal prehiteti, kajti antilopa je bila plen geparda, in zaradi prilagoditve bi morala postati hitrejsa...

antilopa se je prilagodila
za preživetje je povečala rodnost - kar pomeni da antilopa vseeno preživi tudi če je počasnejša

če bi bila antolopa hitrejša bi izumrle plenilske mačke
če se lete ne bi prilagodile

evolucija se dogaja vse okoli nas

Mislim da ni bila to posledica, ampak da nasplosno ima antilopa vecjo rodnost, kot gepard..
Antilopa no povecala rodnost zaradi tega ker je bila plen geparda... in taksna prilagoditev ni kar tako ...je to kr kompleksen sistem.. Nejna rodnost je njen genetski ustroj, in verjento drugacen od geparda.. ampak v osnovi spet isti :)

Plenilska vrsta kot macke so verjento v zacetkih bile malo pocasnejse, potem pa izpopolnjene.. in to z inteligentim posegom .. Bitja so pospesila evolucijo na zemlji..

And then god created man, who just happenes to be very similiral to Homo Erectus.

Ja to bo to.
Združena znanost in vera.

Jep - univerzalna teorija.

Koliko casa obstaja vrsta HOmo sapiens; clovek

biologije te jaz ne bom učil

preberi kakšno knjigo raje