Jump to content

Evolucija


Face Of Melinda
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bata Životinja
Pa nije sigurno nastao zato što je promenio broj hromozoma.

 

a ti znaš čovjeka sa 48 hromozoma?

 

za ovo drugo prvi put čujem, ali ne vjerujem da važi za razvijene organizme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Bata Životinja

da nije došlo do one fuzije to ne bi ni bio čovjek, zar ne?

 

 

e dobro, poslije gripa, boleščina i leševa, čak su i glodari neki napredak.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ja pitam gde to u darvinovoj teoriji evolucije pise nesto o nastanku zivota

 

Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[11] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory. (written in 1871, published in Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 3. p. 18)

 

Иначе, не видим било какву аргументацију од стране креациониста који верују у буквалну ''божју реч'' - знам једино да су не само у сукобу са собом већ у сукобу са свим што постоји...што, иронично, представља и сам сукоб с Богом :]

 

Koliko sam ja razumeo,poenta je da i evolucija kao takva ima ponegde "rupe".Tj nije baš potpuno dokaziva.Govorili smo o tim problemima kao što je missing links i problemima sa fosilima.

 

The abundance of early fossil humans in African sites ceases at dates around 1.3MaBP; there is almost none until nearly 0.8MaBP. Again these are scarce until less than 0.5 Ma. Most of Homo erectus fossils in Java are dated between c.1.3 and 0.70Ma; just a few fossil humans are known in Eurasia for this time span.

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1444100162748676/

 

Ne razumem tvoju izjavu,da Bog postoji a da je on pasivni posmatrač stvaranja,ako si to mislio,kad si rekao da ne treba evoluciju smatrati za glupost.

 

koliko ja vidim na ovoj temi retko ko zna ista o bilo cemu...

Tačno.No šta da radimo sa tim ? 1)da se zatvori tema 2) da samo eksperti pričaju a da ostali ne razumeju (skoro) ništa 3) nešto treće 4) nešto četvrto...

Generalno nauči čovek pored ovih poruka svašta.I google,naravno ;)

Kakvih ima tema,još mi ovde i diskutujemo :)

Edited by -Diamond-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prometheus koji si ti lik, :)

 

Pa majmun i covek imaju isti broj hromozoma, covekova dnk i majmunova metodom hibridizacije su iste 96%, sta znaci hibridizacija?

 

Kada uzmes dnk od coveka i dnk od majmuna i stavis u neku posudu sa enzimima koji rastavljaju i sastavljaju dnk lance, pa 96%znaci da se u toj meri spajaju dnk majmuna i coveka, znaci razlika je mala.

 

A ti i dalje mi nisi odgovorio na pitanje sta su hromozomi, geni i mutacije, dok ove pojmove ne razgranicis, brate ne mozes da razumes i postavljaces glupa pitanja. Ako hoces zaista da ti pojasnim, odgovori mi na pitanja.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''Koliko sam ja razumeo,poenta je da i evolucija kao takva ima ponegde "rupe".Tj nije baš potpuno dokaziva.Govorili smo o tim problemima kao što je missing links i problemima sa fosilima.''

 

 

Никаква наука није потпуно доказива. Полако само, биће времена...

Иначе, и даље не видим поенту довољења у питање креационизма јер научне области које се обазиру на биохемијске процесе сасвим јасно објашњава прилагодивост живих организама као и то да човек, по свој могућој логици и разуму није настао од једног суперентитета ког многи доживљавају термином ''Бог''. Бити тако буквално опредељењ и не схватити библијску метафору на конту тога јесте богохуљење и нисам присталица истог. Такође, нисам присталица оних који чврсто стоје иза научних области и праве се како су свезнајући иако постоје евиденције о томе да научне области нису комплетне.

Моја поента је да како с једне стране, тако и с друге - за креационизам по основи буквалног библијског схватања је потребно бити дебил.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pa da, glupo pitanje je da vi ne znate kako je od 48 nastalo 46 hromozoma and lived....

Pa mogu da ti objasnim i to, ali koja je poenta da ti objasnjavam mehanizam ako ne zelis da razumes bazu cele price, tj ne zelis da razumes sta su hromozom, gen i mutacija :)

 

''Koliko sam ja razumeo,poenta je da i evolucija kao takva ima ponegde "rupe".Tj nije baš potpuno dokaziva.Govorili smo o tim problemima kao što je missing links i problemima sa fosilima.''

 

 

Никаква наука није потпуно доказива. Полако само, биће времена...

Иначе, и даље не видим поенту довољења у питање креационизма јер научне области које се обазиру на биохемијске процесе сасвим јасно објашњава прилагодивост живих организама као и то да човек, по свој могућој логици и разуму није настао од једног суперентитета ког многи доживљавају термином ''Бог''. Бити тако буквално опредељењ и не схватити библијску метафору на конту тога јесте богохуљење и нисам присталица истог. Такође, нисам присталица оних који чврсто стоје иза научних области и праве се како су свезнајући иако постоје евиденције о томе да научне области нису комплетне.

Моја поента је да како с једне стране, тако и с друге - за креационизам по основи буквалног библијског схватања је потребно бити дебил.

 

jeste debilno je drzati se jedne strane, vec treba biti otvoren i ispitivati svaku opciju koja se nudi, ali da to ima logicno dobro izgradjenu bazu. Jer bilo kakva istrazivanja bez dobre baze, nece uroditi plodom.

Meni su u jednom experimentu celije tumora poludele i na odgovarajuci tretman nisu dale zeljan oblik, sto je otvorilo novo pitanje u istrazivanjima, ali u tome je poenta, razmisljati, raditi i otvarati nove opcije.

 

Iskreno, ovde vecina ljudi pise sve i svasta a da nisu razgranicili ni osnovne pojmove, zato i insistiram na njima, jer danas oni nisu vise neko dodatno znanje, vec opsta kulutra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: mehanizam nije teorija, postoji u literaturi vec 15 godina sigurno, kao dokazan, pogledaj sta su to translokacije, inevrzije, delecije hromozoma i nerazdvajanje sestrinskih hromatida...

 

Primer: Sta je razdvojilo coveka od majmuna?

Palac: mutacija gena koji omogucava odvajanje palca od ostatka sake.

Glas: mutacija gena koji kodira larinegalne strukture

Kosmatost, mozdana kora itd isti princip...

 

Zasto nema promena u broju hromozoma? Zato sto je svaki broj hromozoma karakteristican za vrstu i povecan ili umanjen broj dovodi do ubzane smrti.

 

zasto sam dala primer sa hrizantemama ciji su listovi lepsi sa povecanjem garniture broja hromozoma, zato sto je ocigledno da sto je organizam slozeniji, to mu je i genom osetljiviji i na svaku promenu reaguje drasticno, a posto su hrizanteme manje slozene, to ce promena broja hromozoma biti pozenljna osobina (raspitaj se kako se pravi genetski modifikovana hrana i sve ce ti biti jasno :) )

Zato bubasvaba moze da prezivi nuklearku, a covek ne moze jer je njem genom prostiji i na promene ce se lakse adaptirati, no genom coveka.

Zato je i pokazano imas u literaturi, procesljaj po netu, da bi se kod coveka desila neka zaista velika mutacija, koja bi se odomacila kod veceg broja ljudi, potrebne su hiljade i hiljade godine.

Jer je nas genom takav ili ce doci do smrti organizma ili ce se mutacija preneti na potomke dalje, i dovesti do njihove smrti ili ako je mutacija takva da omogucava opstanak, ona ce se zadrzati i eto ti nove fenotipske karakteristike.

 

Naravno postoje situacije kada se broj hromozoma uvecava ali to je praceno poremecajima, jer dodatni hromozom znaci vise gena, vise gena znaci vise proteina, vise proteina, znaci mnogo aktivniji odredjeni metabolicki put, na racun drugih, sto vodi celiju u smrt. Evolucija je obezbedila izbalansiran broj hromzoma, koji ti omogucava dovoljan broj gena, za adekvatan celijski metabolizam u skladu sa uslovima u kojima covek zivi. Ne mozes da ocekujes drasticne promene jer je opet evolucija omogucala takve reparatorne mehanizme koji ne dozvoljavaju da zigot koji ima veci broj hromozoma ili manji broj hromozoma prezivi, a i ako prezivi postoje promene u celijskom metabolizmu, koje dovode do retardacije, steriliteta, znaci odrazava se na reproduktivne sposobnosti da bi se sprecilo sirenje loseg genoma. Slika je mnogo veca i slozenija, a ovo je samo maelni delic.

Edited by Face Of Melinda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ja pitam gde to u darvinovoj teoriji evolucije pise nesto o nastanku zivota

 

Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[11] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory. (written in 1871, published in Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 3. p. 18)

 

kao sto vidis, ja sam pitao: gde U TEORIJI EVOLUCIJE pise nesto o postanku zivota. ti si se referisao na pisma na materijal koji ne pripada teoriji evoucije (pisma carsla darvina) - i koji je pri tome jasno naveden kao PRETPOSTAVKA i "MOZDA JE TO TAKO", dakle vise kao ideja.

 

da vidimo,

citat iz "origin of spieces" od carsla darvina, licno:

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated;

dakle, na ovom i na jos par mesta u knjizi - jasno kaze da samo poreklo zivota nije tema te knjige (evolucije). ok?

 

---

 

inace,

hajde da se podsetimo nekih osnovnih stvari:

 

Speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses. Well-tested explanations are called theories.

"Theories" are not "true" in science, at least in the regular sense of the word "true". "True" "theories" only are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." [2]

"Proof" of a theory does not exist in science. Proof only exists in mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation.

A scientific law is a concept related to a scientific theory. Very well-established "theories" that rely on a simple principle are often called scientific "laws". For example, it is common to encounter reference to "the law of gravity", "the law of natural selection", or the "laws of evolution."

 

dakle, teorija evolucije (niti bilo koja druga teorija) ne moze biti "DOKAZANA", vec samo POTVRDJENA ("validated"). razlika je kao dupe i oko, jer dokaz ne ostavlja mesta za ispravke i moguc je samo u matematici. potvrdjivanje (validacija) teorije ne znaci da se u buducnosti nece pojaviti neki novi momenti koji ce pomoci da se teorija izmeni tako da JOS BOLJE i preciznije opise realnost. kreacionizam, sa druge strane, nije poznaje nikakva "poboljsanja" niti posmatranja stvarnosti da bi se ona bolje opisala i da bi se nesto shvatilo. kreacionizam je prkosenje svakom zdravom razumu u poredjenju sa teorijom evolucije...

 

---

 

Iskreno, ovde vecina ljudi pise sve i svasta a da nisu razgranicili ni osnovne pojmove, zato i insistiram na njima, jer danas oni nisu vise neko dodatno znanje, vec opsta kulutra.

tacno. ne samo da vecina ljudi ne razume osnovne pojmove, nego neki nisu procitali ni onu knjigu koja je definisala evoluciju - ali spremni su da "napadaju" i osporavaju.. :)

 

---

 

nije tesko naci knjigu na netu: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pdf/Origin_of_Species.pdf

(ali nema ko da procita :udri: )

 

svaki put kad dodjem na ovu temu, uhvati me jeza jer shvatim koliko je obrazovanje u srbiji otislo u ponor jos odavno. :(

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ovo su pitanja samo i iskljucivo za tebe (to znaci da ostali clanovi ne odgovaraju na pitanja):

sta znaci skracenica dnk ili ako vise volis engleski dna?

proteini tj. belancevine su sastavljeni od...?

osnovnovni gradivni element zivog bica je...? (s tim sto postoje bica koja su izuzetak npr. virusi)

ono sto je isto u svakoj celiji jedne jedinke je...?

 

Dezoksiribonukleinska kiselina iliti Deoxyribonucleic acid.

Od amino kiselina spojenih najcesce peptidnim vezama.

Amino kiseline.

DNA.

 

 

Koja je tvoja poenta? Testiras moje znanje biologije da ne kazem genetike? Sta ti je nejasno?

 

Elem da ponovim, za slucaj da si zaboravila sta sam tvrdio.

 

Amino kiseline su materija, tojest materije (molekuli, organska jedinjenja) koja se nalaze u apsolutno svim poznatim formama zivota. Osnovni su gradivni blokovi u proizvodnji proteina i izgradnji celija. Pa tako i DNA. Sluze za prenos informacija (otuda DNA) ali i hranljivih materija i signala u zivim organizmima. Bez amino-kiselina ne postoji zivot. Nemoguc je, as we know it. Cak i u virusima. Dig it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Bata Životinja

Melinda, ja brate neću više ni da čitam tvoje postove, lijepo ti tražim, neću više ni ponavljam šta tražim, i tu sam završio.

 

kad bi evolucija bila dokazana mene to ne bi pogodilo koliko crno pod noktom. Meni je žao što bi u suprotnom tebi bilo mnogo teže, pa te razumijem da eto moraš nešto da odgovoriš, iako te to nisam pitao....

 

super, osjetljiviji genom, imamo palac koji stvara moždanu koru, a sad primjer živog bića kome se to desilo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dezoksiribonukleinska kiselina iliti Deoxyribonucleic acid.

Od amino kiselina spojenih najcesce peptidnim vezama.

Amino kiseline.

DNA.

 

 

Koja je tvoja poenta? Testiras moje znanje biologije da ne kazem genetike? Sta ti je nejasno?

 

Elem da ponovim, za slucaj da si zaboravila sta sam tvrdio.

 

Amino kiseline su materija, tojest materije (molekuli, organska jedinjenja) koja se nalaze u apsolutno svim poznatim formama zivota. Osnovni su gradivni blokovi u proizvodnji proteina i izgradnji celija. Pa tako i DNA. Sluze za prenos informacija (otuda DNA) ali i hranljivih materija i signala u zivim organizmima. Bez amino-kiselina ne postoji zivot. Nemoguc je, as we know it. Cak i u virusima. Dig it?

skontala....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

za ovo drugo prvi put čujem, ali ne vjerujem da važi za razvijene organizme

 

pa da, glupo pitanje je da vi ne znate kako je od 48 nastalo 46 hromozoma and lived....

deer_mantjac.jpg

^Ovo je kineski muntjak koji ima 46 hromozoma

indian-muntjac-deer.jpg

^Ovo je indijski muntjak koji ima 6 hromozoma

 

Ako je promena broja hromozoma "major mutacija", objasni mi kako je ovaj kurac uspeo da promeni broj hromozoma 20 puta bez znatnih genetskih promena, a pritom su ostali sposobni za medjusobnu oplodnju. Dakle, ili je ceo prirodni poredak suspendovan, ili ti nešto nisi skontao. Hm...

 

The Indian muntjac possesses the lowest diploid chromosomal number in mammals (2n = 6 for females [F] and 7 for males [M]), whereas the Chinese muntjac has a 2n number of 46 in both sexes. These two species, however, can produce viable F1 hybrids (2n = 27) in captivity, and partial spermatogenesis was observed in hybrids. Other karyotyped species have intermediate numbers of chromosomes; for example, 2n = 8 F, 9 M in Muntiacus crinifrons, 2n = 8 F, 9 M in Muntiacus gongshanensis, and 2n = 13 F, 14 M in Muntiacus feae. The tufted deer, which is the sole species in the other genus of the Muntiacinae subfamily, has polymorphic karyotypes with three different diploid numbers, 46, 47, and 48, observed in natural populations.

 

A comparative study of karyotypes of muntjacs

We have used a combination of chromosome sorting, degenerate oligonucleotide-primed polymerase chain reaction (DOP-PCR), chromosome painting and digital image capturing and processing techniques for comparative chromosome analysis of members of the genus Muntiacus. Chromosome-specific paints from a female Indian muntjac were hybridised to the metaphase chromosomes of the Gongshan, Black, and Chinese muntjac by both single and three colour chromosome painting. Karyotypes and idiograms for the Indian, Gongshan, Black and Chinese muntjac were constructed, based on enhanced 4, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) banding patterns. The hybridisation signal for each paint was assigned to specific bands or chromosomes for all of the above muntjac species. The interspecific chromosomal homology was demonstrated by the use of both enhanced DAPI banding and comparative chromosome painting. These results provide direct molecular cytogenetic evidence for the tandem fusion theory of the chromosome evolution of muntjac species.

 

Chromosomal evolution of the Chinese muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi).

The aim of this study was to test the validity of the hypothesis that the 2n=46 karyotype of the Chinese muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) could have evolved through 12 tandem fusions from a 2n=70 hypothetical ancestral karyotype, which is still retained in Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis) and brown-brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira). Combining fluorescence-activated chromosomal sorting and degenerate oligonucleotide-primed polymerase chain reaction, we generated chromosome-specific DNA paint probes for 13 M. gouazoubira chromosomes and most of the M. reevesi chromosomes with the exception of 18, 19 and X. These paint probes were used for fluorescence in situ hybridisation to chromosomal preparations of M. reevesi, H. inermis and M. gouazoubira. Chromosome-specific paint probes from M. reevesi chromosomes 1-5 and 11 each delineated more than one homologous pair (18 pairs in total) on the metaphases of H. inermis and M. gouazoubira. All the other probes from M. reevesi and probes from M. gouazoubira each hybridised to one pair of homologous chromosomes or regions. The C5 probe, derived from centromeric satellite sequences of M. reevesi, hybridised to the centromeric regions of all chromosomes of these three species. Most interestingly, several non-random interstitial signals, which are apparently localised to the putative fusion points, were found on chromosomes 1-5 and 11 of M. reevesi. Both the reciprocal painting patterns and localisation of the C5 probe demonstrate that M. reevesi chromosomes 1-5 and 11 could have evolved from 18 different ancestral chromosomes through 12 tandem fusions, thus providing direct molecular cytogenetic support for the tandem fusion hypothesis of karyotype evolution in M. reevesi.

 

A new centric fusion translocation in cattle: rob

A bull from Marchigiana breed (central Italy) was found to be a heterozygous carrier of a centric fusion translocation involving cattle chromosomes 13 and 19 according to RBA-banding and cattle standard nomenclatures. CBC-banding revealed the dicentric nature of this new translocation, underlining the recent origin of this fusion. In fact, both the bull's parents and relatives had normal karyotypes. In vitro fertilization tests were also performed in the bull carrying the new translocation, in two bulls with normal karyotypes (control) and in four other bulls carrying four different translocations.

 

Cytogenetics and reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions

The significance of centric fusions in domestic animals, with special reference to sheep, is reviewed. The mating is described of a further 856 ewes with either a normal chromosome number 2n = 54 or carrying one or more of the three different translocations (centric fusions) t1, t2 and t3 in various heterozygous and homozygous arrangements. Rams which were used in the matings were homozygous for one of the translocation chromosomes (2n = 52), double heterozygotes (2n = 52), triple heterozygotes (2n = 51) or were carriers of 4 translocation chromosomes (2n = 50) and 5 translocation chromosomes (2n = 49). A remarkably even distribution of segregation products was recorded in the progeny of all combinations of translocation ewes x translocation rams in those groups in which sufficient animals were available for statistical analysis. Forty-eight chromosomally different groups of animals were mated. Further, the overall fertility of the translocation sheep, measured by conception rate to first service, lambing percentage and number of ewes which did not breed a lamb, was not significantly different from New Zealand national sheep breeding data. In some groups the poorer reproductive performance could be explained by the age structure of the flock and inbreeding depression, which probably affected the performance of some animals. Sheep with progressively decreasing chromosome numbers, due to centric fusion, 2n = 50, 2n = 49 and 2n = 48, are reported. The 2n = 48 category represents a triple homozygous ewe and a triple homozygous ram and is the first report of the viable evolution of such domestic animals. Less than 1% of phenotypically abnormal lambs were recorded in a total of 1995 progeny born over 10 years. It is now considered that there is little or no evidence to suggest that centric fusions in a variety of combinations affect the total productive fitness of domestic sheep. It is suggested that future research should be more actively directed to understanding their genetic significance.

 

Induced Robertsonian fusions and tandem translocations in mammalian cell cultures

Cultures of a cattle cell line and a Peromyscus eremicus cell line recovering from a pulse-treatment with mitomycin C, actinomycin D, 33258 Hoechst, and nitrosoguanidine exhibited translocations between chromosomes at the centromeric regions (Robertsonian fusions) as well as between centromere and telomere and between telomeres (tandem translocations). The frequency of Robertsonian fusions was found to be dose-dependent and duration-dependent with the mitomycin treatment. Biarmed chromosomes resulting from fusions may be monocentric or dicentric. Analyses of clones isolated from treated cells suggested that fused chromosomes may perpetuate in the cell populations.

---

The Przewalski horse/domestic horse hybrid was fertile and showed normal spermatogenesis. Chromosome banding studies showed a close homology between the karyotypes of the Prezwalski horse (Equus przewalskii, 2n = 66) and the domestic horse (E. caballus, 2n = 64), and it is evident that a single Robertsonian translocation has occurred transforming four acrocentric chromosomes of E. przewalskii into two metacentric chromosomes in E. caballus. The investigations showed that a trivalent is formed at meiosis in the hybrid (2n = 65), segregation from which gives two classes of genetically balanced spermatozoa. Both of these are capable of producing normal offspring if they fertilize the eggs of a domestic mare.

 

I naravno, čovek http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disor...obertsonian.cfm

Ako ti treba još primera, izvoli...

da nije došlo do one fuzije to ne bi ni bio čovjek, zar ne?
Objasniću ti možda za koji dan, smorilo me ovo pejstovanje :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Бити тако буквално опредељењ и не схватити библијску метафору на конту тога јесте богохуљење и нисам присталица истог.

 

U Bibliji postoje metafore,ali stoji da je Bog stvorio svet.Nadam se da se slažemo oko toga,nevezano da li se neko slaže sa ovim ili ne.Ne razumem na šta misliš kada kažeš bogohuljenje.Za Boga je hiljadu godina kao jedan dan tako da je tu sad otvoreno da li je to bio ovaj naš zemaljski dan ili ne.

 

kao sto vidis, ja sam pitao: gde U TEORIJI EVOLUCIJE pise nesto o postanku zivota. ti si se referisao na pisma na materijal koji ne pripada teoriji evoucije (pisma carsla darvina) - i koji je pri tome jasno naveden kao PRETPOSTAVKA i "MOZDA JE TO TAKO", dakle vise kao ideja.

Naravno ne mislim da je nešto posebno analiziran taj početak života,to nisam ni mislio.Nesporazum očito.I sam si rekao da se neke stvari ne mogu dokazati,tako da shodno tome i mora stojati "predpostavka" kao izraz.

 

Našao sam ovo

 

On The Origin of Species was first published on 24 November 1859, price fifteen shillings. The book was offered to booksellers at Murray's autumn sale on 22 November, and all available copies were taken up immediately. In total 1250 copies were printed, but after deducting presentation and review copies, and five for Stationers' Hall copyright, around 1,170 copies were available for sale.[11] The second edition of 3,000 copies was quickly brought out on 7 January 1860,[12] and added "by the Creator" into the closing sentence, so that from then on it read "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."[13] While some commentators, such as Richard Dawkins, have taken this as an indication that Darwin was bowing to pressure to make concessions to religion,[14] biographer James Moore describes Darwin's vision as being of God creating life through the laws of nature.[15] Even in the first edition the term Creator appears several times, and at the start of the previous paragraph Darwin contrasts his idea "with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

 

Nego jel neko gledao na B92 National Geographic, The search for Adam

 

http://youtube.com/?v=TnrUR6GvAKk

Edited by -Diamond-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Bata Životinja

odlično, ima tu i nečeg zanimljivog...

 

 

pritom su ostali sposobni za medjusobnu oplodnju.

 

da li ovo važi za majmune i ljude? :)

 

ne samo što se tiče oplodnje nego i svega ostalog. Ipsade da MOŽEŠ da promijeniš broj hromozoma, a da majmun i dalje ne bude čovjek :)

 

-----------------

 

inače. za sve evolucioniste

 

hugill-bergvall02.jpg

 

kapirate ili treba objašnjenje :)

Edited by Bata Životinja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Neurotripsick: super primer, ali dzaba njemu pricas celu ovu pricu o robertsonovoj translokaciji itd kada covek ne razume osnovne pojmove :)

 

A btw mislim da je svako na ovoj temi dovoljno edukovan da razume poruku na francuskom... i samo da te zamolim nemoj leba ti da pricas ovo sto pises ovde ljudima vani, ko imalo ima znanja smejace ti se ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Momci ne kapirate jednu stvar, niko se ovde ne pravi pametan, ali poenta je da ako mi neko trazi objasnjenje da te barem saslusa i pokusa da razume, ja sam sto puta objasnila neke stvari, ali nema ko da cita...

Da, ja znam samo biologiju, ne znam ni francuski, ni sta je to relativnost pojmova, ali dobro, nije to toliko ni bitno zar ne? Vazno je da ti i dalje meni nisi odgovorio sta su hromozom, gen i mutacije. Dok ne razgranicis te stvari u svojoj glavi, neces znati da postavis pitanje, odnosno ne mozes da shvatis i bilo koje moje objasnjenje na zalost. A ovo se sve uci u cetvrtom razredu gimnazije, ja nista novo ne iznosim... Osim ako niste zavrsili gimnaziju...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...