Forum Klix.ba

debela wrote:padobranski ulet - je li ista od spomenutih knjiga na zadnje dvije strane prevedeno na nas jezik?

Od spomenutih znam da je Sebicni gen i Iluzija o bogu prevedena na hrvatski. Prijevod prve knjige je odlican dok sam drugu citao u originalu. Od ostalih Dawkinsovih knjiga mislim da je jos jedna prevedena na hrvatski ali nisam siguran koja. Sto se tice drugih knjiga prevedenih na nase jezike izdvojio bih Genom (hrv) od Ridleya ako cemo o evoluciji, a ako cemo o porijeklu religija onda je tu nezaobilazna Zlatna grana od Frazera (takodjer hrvatski prijevod ali bezobrazno skup - malo manje od stotinu kaemova!). Srbijanski izdavaci su dosta jeftiniji ali nisam siguran kako oni stoje sa naslovima u ovom domenu mada, iz iskustva (astronomija, fizika, itsl.), licno preferiram zapadnim komsijama ticano prijevoda i kvalitete printa.

Javim ti malo detaljniju listu uskoro.

Imal' ko da se u međuvremenu imalo evoluiso?

andrija2007 wrote:Imal' ko da se u međuvremenu imalo evoluiso?

Jesam ja, narasla mi brada i jos sam se malo udebljao.

hvala nin

Darwinova teorija evolucije će nam pomoći u pronalaženju izvanzemaljskog života, tako što će nam 'pokazati' gdje trebamo tražiti, tvrdi jedan astrobiolog iz NASA-e.

Na obljetnici 150. godišnjice od objavljivanja O podrijetlu vrsta, dr. John Baross iz NASA-inog Astrobiološkog instituta je izjavio da će Darwinova teorija evolucije biti glavna pokretačka snaga života bilo gdje u svemiru te da bi je trebalo iskoristiti za predviđanje mjesta na kojem moramo tražiti.

"Ja zaista mislim da Darwinova teorija definira svojstva sveg postojećeg života", rekao je Baross. "A njezina će ograničenja definirati raspon planeta koji mogu podržavati život. Barem život u zemaljskom smislu", dodao je. Držeći javno predavanje u NASA-inom istraživačkom centru Ames u kaliforniji, dr. Baross je rekao da je misija svemirskog teleskopa Kepler, koji traži planete nalik Zemlji oko drugih zvijezda, vrlo uzbudljiva za astrobiologiju jer se zapravo traži izvanzemaljski život. "Predviđam da ćemo u sljedećih pet do deset godina doći do otkrića koja će voditi do teorija i ideja velikih kao što su bile Darwinove", rekao je.

Baross kaže da je potraga za izvanzemaljskim životom uvijek uzimala Zemlju kao model. Iako je naše razumijevanje o nastanku života nepotpuno, jasno je da postoje određeni uvjeti. Sav život na Zemlji treba vodu, organske molekule na bazi ugljika i izvor energije, bez obzira bila ona solarna ili kemijska. No, izvanzemaljski život bi mogao biti različit od onog na Zemlji. "Želio bih naglasiti da postoje mnogi različiti načini za nezemaljski život, koji ne bi morao koristiti niti svjetlost niti kemijsku energiju, nego neke druge oblike zračenja energije, energiju valova ili ultraljubičastu energiju", kaže Baross. Slično tome, možda ni potreba za vodom nije univerzalna.

"Život može postojati u organskim otopinama, a ne tekućoj vodi. I na temperaturama koje se spuštaju do 100 stupnjeva ispod ništice – postoji mnogo načina na koje možemo razmišljati, zbog toga jer na različitim planetima postoje različiti uvjeti", kaže dr. Baross. Do sada su astronomi pronašli 304 egzoplaneta – planeta izvan našeg Sunčevog sustava. I dok je većina plinovitih divova nalik Jupiteru, stotinama ili tisućama puta veće od Zemlje, otkriveno je i nekoliko manjih. Očekuje se da će i Kepler u sljedećih nekoliko godina bitno pridonositi tom broju.

"Mislim da svi mi očekujemo da netko svakog trenutka objavi vijest da je otkriven stjenoviti planet nalik Zemlji", Baross.


Net.hr
06.11.2009.

Nije direktno o evoluciji, ali je tema ipak bioloska......

Selective sequencing solves a genetic mystery
Examining only protein-coding genes finds cause of Miller syndrome.
13.11.2009

Targeted sequencing of the entire protein-coding portion of the human genome has for the first time discovered the cause of a rare genetic disorder.

"This technology is incredibly promising," says James Kiley, director of the division of lung diseases at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, which partly funded the work. "It's giving us a more efficient way to identify the causal genetic factors of disease."

Protein-coding genes make up only about 1% of the human genome, but they harbour the bulk of the mutations that contribute the most to disease. So, rather than sequencing entire genomes, many researchers are starting to decode only the protein-coding exons — collectively called the 'exome' — to make genetic inferences at a fraction of the cost of whole-genome sequencing.

In August, a team led by Jay Shendure and Sarah Ng at the University of Washington in Seattle provided the first proof-of-principle that this approach could detect the genetic culprits behind single-gene, or Mendelian, diseases. The researchers sequenced the exomes of 12 unrelated individuals, four of whom had a rare, inherited disorder called Freeman–Sheldon syndrome. Although the genetic defect behind the disease was already known, the technique zeroed in on the exact gene responsible for the disease, demonstrating that it was feasible to sort out the genetic signal from more than 300 million bases of DNA noise.

"The primary criticism of that paper is that we knew the answer and we were basically showing it could be done," says Shendure. "Here, we're extending that to something where we didn't know the answer."

Tip of the iceberg

Shendure and his colleagues have now sequenced the exomes of two siblings and two unrelated individuals who all suffered from a single-gene disorder called Miller syndrome, which is characterized by facial malformations and limb abnormalities, such as a cleft palate and absent or webbed fingers and toes. Although the disease was first described 30 years ago, its genetic basis has remained elusive.

The researchers compared the exomes of Miller-affected individuals to exome sequences from eight healthy, unrelated individuals. This approach flagged a single candidate gene called DHODH, which encodes an enzyme that is essential for making some of the building blocks used in DNA and RNA. Shendure's team then directly sequenced DHODH in four more Miller-affected individuals and found that they too all had mutations in this gene. No similar mutations were found in 100 unaffected individuals. The findings are published online today in Nature Genetics.

"This is the first demonstration of whole-exome sequencing for a new disease-gene discovery," says Richard Lifton, a geneticist at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved in the work. This first discovery is only the tip of the iceberg, he adds. "I think there are large classes of Mendelian traits that will be found by whole-exome sequencing."

Lifton also notes that exome sequencing will be useful as a clinical tool. In October, Lifton and his colleagues used the technique to diagnose a five-month-old child with a mysterious genetic illness. They found that the infant, who was suffering from persistent dehydration and a lack of weight gain, had a mutation in a gene that caused intestinal problems due to congenital chloride diarrhoea, not in a kidney-associated gene as physicians had originally suspected.

Shendure is confident that exome sequencing can reliably uncover genes that are responsible for relatively simple, single-gene disorders. The big challenge moving forward, he says, is to show that the method can tease apart the genetic basis of more-complex diseases in which two or more genes are involved. "That's by no means a given," he says. "This is going to be hard."

Izvor: Nature

Jel neko procitao Dokinsa Najveca predstava na Zemlji? Kakvi su utisci?

Moze pitanje za NIN-a ? (:

Procitao sam dobar dio tvojih postova na ovu temu. Iskreno, ne vjerujem da smo nastali od jednog covjeka i jedne zene. (A vjerujem u Boga)
Cinjenica je da neke stvari ne moze nauka objasniti, ali isto tako, neke stvari moras shvatati i gledati ih srcem. "Covjek samo srcem dobro vidi." Mali princ

Dakle, moje pitanje.
Odakle smo (mi ljudi) dosli, i gdje idemo? (sta poslije smrti?)
Recimo da je TE istina, kako naucno objasljnjavas zagrobni zivot?

Cisto me zanima tvoje naucno (ateisticko- ne, ne stavljam nauku i ateizam u istu korpu) misljenje.

.

siperak wrote:Moze pitanje za NIN-a ? (:

Procitao sam dobar dio tvojih postova na ovu temu. Iskreno, ne vjerujem da smo nastali od jednog covjeka i jedne zene. (A vjerujem u Boga)
Cinjenica je da neke stvari ne moze nauka objasniti, ali isto tako, neke stvari moras shvatati i gledati ih srcem. "Covjek samo srcem dobro vidi." Mali princ

Dakle, moje pitanje.
Odakle smo (mi ljudi) dosli, i gdje idemo? (sta poslije smrti?)
Recimo da je TE istina, kako naucno objasljnjavas zagrobni zivot?

Cisto me zanima tvoje naucno (ateisticko- ne, ne stavljam nauku i ateizam u istu korpu) misljenje.

Ne mora znaciti ako neko podrzava TE da je ateista! TE nema nikakve veze sa zagrobnim zivotom i smislom samog zivota, osim ako se zagrobni zivot ne posmatra kao slijedeci korak u evoluciji!

gledala sma prosle sedmice emisiju na NOVA

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolu ... art-1.html

jOFLA wrote: Izuzev sa određenog psihološkog pa i sociološkog stanovišta istražujući razna vjerovanja, nauka se uopšte ne zanima za zagrobni život. Zagrobnim životom bavi se religija.

Tvrditi da u evoluciji Bog nije ucestvovao je apsurd, jer ne moze nesto proizaci iz nicega. To je ono sto NIN tvrdi.
Licno smatram da nauka i religija idu skupa sto meni daje pravo da je uplicem i u ovu temu.

@mala truba
Rekao sam da ne stavljam ateizam i nauku u istu korpu, NIN negira umjesanost Boga u stvaranju ljudske vrste zbog toga "predpostavljam" da je ateista.

.

Razlike izmedju nauke i pseudonauke su ogromne, a o teologiji da ne govorimo.

No te ne umanjuje vrijednost niti jedne grane!

jOFLA wrote:
Ti je lično smiješ smatrati naukom, samo to religiju i dalje ne čini naukom niti ide uz nauku. Nešto da bi se smatralo naukom ili naučnom metodom, mora se sastojati od tri elementa:

1. Eksperiment/opažanje
2. mjerenje
3. upoređivanje.

Ukoliko nedostaje samo jedan od ta tri elementa, to više nije nauka, i nema ništa naučno. Što se religije tiče ona se na naučni način razmatra samo u polju psihologije i sociologije. Bilo šta što nema ili se ne mogu ispuniti sva tri gore navedena elementa, nauku uopšte ne zanima i ne bavi se takvim stvarima.

Ne znam zašto je mnogima toliko jako stalo ugurati religiju u nauku; vi kojima je do toga stalo, ne bi li trebali biti zapravo ponosni što religija nije nauka ?

Ne, ne, ne cekaj malo. Nisam rekao religija je nauka, niti nauka je religija. To jesu dva pojma, razlicita naravno, ali zasto razdvajati to dvoje? Onaj ko ne sumnja u svoju religiju ne bi trebao da se plasi onoga sto nauka govori, ustvari nauka treba da potvrdi ono sto religija kaze. (Ne ono sto Ceric kaze, nego Sveta knjiga) Ali evo otisao sam sa onoga sto sam prvobitno htio da saznam. U biti ne zelim se raspravljati o temi jer tu ekipa koja je pisala prije mene zna puno vise, ja samo uzivam u citanju. Mene samo zanima odgovor na pitanje koje sam u pocetku postavio. Vi, koji ne vjerujete u kreacionizam [ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreacionizam ] (a medju njima je NIN) volio bi da mi odgovorite na pitanje.
Pozz (:

puremoods wrote:Jel neko procitao Dokinsa Najveca predstava na Zemlji? Kakvi su utisci?

Evo tu mozes naci odlomak iz te knjige preveden na nas:
http://www.heliks.rs/assets/text/npz_odlomak.pdf

Uglavnom, knjigu je izasla pred beogradski sajam u izdanju izdavacke kuce "Heliks" . Ja sam ju zbavio ali je nisam procitao.

siperak wrote:

jOFLA wrote:
Ti je lično smiješ smatrati naukom, samo to religiju i dalje ne čini naukom niti ide uz nauku. Nešto da bi se smatralo naukom ili naučnom metodom, mora se sastojati od tri elementa:

1. Eksperiment/opažanje
2. mjerenje
3. upoređivanje.

Ukoliko nedostaje samo jedan od ta tri elementa, to više nije nauka, i nema ništa naučno. Što se religije tiče ona se na naučni način razmatra samo u polju psihologije i sociologije. Bilo šta što nema ili se ne mogu ispuniti sva tri gore navedena elementa, nauku uopšte ne zanima i ne bavi se takvim stvarima.

Ne znam zašto je mnogima toliko jako stalo ugurati religiju u nauku; vi kojima je do toga stalo, ne bi li trebali biti zapravo ponosni što religija nije nauka ?

Ne, ne, ne cekaj malo. Nisam rekao religija je nauka, niti nauka je religija. To jesu dva pojma, razlicita naravno, ali zasto razdvajati to dvoje?

Nema se šta razdvajati jer ta dva pojma nisu sastavljena. Postoji samo očajničko nastojanje kreacionista da ih se na silu sastavi.

Onaj ko ne sumnja u svoju religiju ne bi trebao da se plasi onoga sto nauka govori, ustvari nauka treba da potvrdi ono sto religija kaze. (Ne ono sto Ceric kaze, nego Sveta knjiga) Ali evo otisao sam sa onoga sto sam prvobitno htio da saznam. U biti ne zelim se raspravljati o temi jer tu ekipa koja je pisala prije mene zna puno vise, ja samo uzivam u citanju. Mene samo zanima odgovor na pitanje koje sam u pocetku postavio. Vi, koji ne vjerujete u kreacionizam [ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreacionizam ] (a medju njima je NIN) volio bi da mi odgovorite na pitanje.
Pozz (:

I sam si gore rekao "ne može nešto iz ničega" - eto ti prvog i osnovnog razloga što ljudi masovno nisu na strani religijskih objašnjenja koja bez problema sugeriraju da može nešto iz ničega.
Kad se kreacioniste pita kako to može nešto iz ničega, i kad im se zatraži opis procesa, pogledaju u nebo i izgovore šifru "Bog" koja znači "ne znam i ne zanima me".

siperak wrote:Moze pitanje za NIN-a ?

Mislim da si dobio zeljene odgovore od drugih forumasa. Jedino sto bih ti mozda preporucio je da se malo bolje upoznas sa pojmom nauka, sta ona predstavlja i kako fercera.

Nego,



U raljama 8 tona teškog Superkrokodila čovjek drži fosilnu glavu malog krokodila (DogCroc). Novopronađeni fosili živjeli su u doba dinosaurusa. Među 5 novopronađenih fosila 3 su do sad nepoznate vrste, a živjeli su prije nekih 100.000 godina.

AFP

chengaba wrote:Razlike izmedju nauke i pseudonauke su ogromne, a o teologiji da ne govorimo.

No te ne umanjuje vrijednost niti jedne grane!

kako ne umanjuje .pa zar to nije srž znanosti?

ljubav_aha wrote:gledala sma prosle sedmice emisiju na NOVA

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolu ... art-1.html

odlican program, moze se skinut sa neta.. (torrents)

siperak wrote:
Ne, ne, ne cekaj malo. Nisam rekao religija je nauka, niti nauka je religija. To jesu dva pojma, razlicita naravno, ali zasto razdvajati to dvoje? Onaj ko ne sumnja u svoju religiju ne bi trebao da se plasi onoga sto nauka govori, ustvari nauka treba da potvrdi ono sto religija kaze. (Ne ono sto Ceric kaze, nego Sveta knjiga) Ali evo otisao sam sa onoga sto sam prvobitno htio da saznam. U biti ne zelim se raspravljati o temi jer tu ekipa koja je pisala prije mene zna puno vise, ja samo uzivam u citanju. Mene samo zanima odgovor na pitanje koje sam u pocetku postavio. Vi, koji ne vjerujete u kreacionizam [ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreacionizam ] (a medju njima je NIN) volio bi da mi odgovorite na pitanje.
Pozz (:

Mozda samo trebala, medjutim, iako znam da se sa ovim neces sloziti, ali upravo je suprotno - nauka dolazi do otkrica koja se ne slazu sa religijskim tvrdnjama.

Sto se samo evolucije tice, sama evolucija ne negira postojanje nekog svemoguceg bica, ali vecina religija tvrdi da su vrste stvorene takve kakve jesu sto je nauka davno dokazala da nije tacno. Mozda jos nije otkriveno kako nastaje sam zivot (iako naucnici rade i na tome da vjestackim putem od nezive materije stvore zivu) ali je sama evolucija naucno dokazana, da se vrste mijenjaju i prilagodjavaju uslovima zivota, samo se jos uvijek popunjavaju dijelovi slagalice koji fale.

Evo jedan zanimljiv tekst:

FUTURE HUMANS: Four Ways We May, or May Not Evolve

James Owen
for National Geographic News
November 24, 2009

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago Tuesday, opened the book on our evolutionary past, which has since been traced by scientists back to fossil apes.



But where is evolution taking us? Will our descendants hurtle through space as relatively unchanged as the humans on the starship Enterprise? Will they be muscle-bound cyborgs? Or will they chose to digitize their consciousnesses—becoming electronic immortals? And as odd as the possibilities may seem, it's worth remembering that, 150 years ago, the ape-to-human scenario in On the Origin of Species struck many as nothing so much as monkey business.



PREDICTION ONE
Human Evolution Is Dead

"Because we have evolved, it's natural to imagine we will continue to do so, but I think that's wrong," anthropologist Ian Tattersall of New York's American Museum of Natural History said in an email. "Everything we know about evolutionary change suggests that genetic innovations are only likely to become fixed in small, isolated populations," he said. For example, Darwin's famous Galápagos finches each evolved from their mainland ancestor to fit a unique habitat on the isolated islands in the Pacific. Natural selection, as outlined in On the Origin of Species, occurs when a genetic mutation—say, resulting in a spine suited to upright walking—is passed down through generations, because it affords some benefit. Eventually the mutation becomes the norm. But if populations aren't isolated, crossbreeding makes it much less likely for potentially significant mutations to become established in the gene pool—and that's exactly where we are now, Tattersall said.

"Since the advent of settled life, human populations have expanded enormously. Homo sapiens is densely packed across the Earth, and individuals are unprecedentedly mobile. "In this situation, the fixation of any meaningful evolutionary novelties in the human population is highly improbable." Tattersall said. "Human beings are just going to have to learn to live with themselves as they are."

Steve Jones, a genetics professor at University College London, put forward a similar scenario during a recent lecture series marking the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species at the University of Cambridge. The human population will become more alike as races merge, he said, but "Darwin's machine has lost its power." That's because natural selection—Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept—is being sidelined in humans, according to Jones. The fittest will no longer spearhead evolutionary change, because, thanks to medical advances, the weakest also live on and pass down their genes. When On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, only about half of British children survived to 21. Today that number has swelled to 99 percent. In developed countries, "the fact that everybody stays alive, at least until they're sexually mature, means ['survival of the fittest' has] got nothing to work with," Jones said. "That part of the Darwinian fuel has gone."


PREDICTION TWO
Humans Will Continue to Evolve

Other scientists see plenty of evidence that human evolution is far from over. For instance, a study published last month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that women of the future could become shorter and stouter. A team led by Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns found that, due to ovulatory characteristics, shorter, slightly plumper women tend to have more children than their peers. These physical traits are passed on to their offspring, suggesting natural selection in humans is alive and well. Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico, believes Darwinian evolution in humans is actually speeding up. He highlighted sexual selection through mate choice as one key driver.

"You still have powerful mate choice shaping mental traits particularly … traits that are needed to succeed economically and in raising kids," Miller said. "We're also going to get stronger sexual selection, because the more advanced the technology gets, the greater an effect general intelligence will have on each individual's economic and social success, because as technology gets more complex, you need more intelligence to master it," he said. "That intelligence results in higher earnings, social status, and sexual attractiveness."

Miller added that artificial selection using genetic technologies will likely accentuate these changes in the future. "Parents could basically choose which sperm and egg get to meet up to produce a baby based on genetic information about which genes contribute to which physical and mental traits," he said. "If the rich and powerful keep the artificial-selection technology to themselves, then you could get that kind of split between a kind of upper-class, dominant population and a lower-class, genetically oppressed population," he added. "But I think it's very likely the new genetic technologies will be widespread in their use, simply because that's more profitable. So I think there will actually be a leveling effect, where both the poor and the rich are going to be able to have the best kids they can genetically. "You will probably see a rise in average physical attractiveness and health," he added. "You will probably get selection for physical traits that tend to be attractive in both males and females—things like height, muscularity, energy levels."

But "regular" natural selection will also continue to play a major role, Miller believes. "What you're facing now is a global pathogen pool of viruses and bacteria that get spread around by air travel to every corner of the Earth, and that's going to increase," he said. "We're going to get a lot more epidemics," Miller added. "That will increase the importance of the genetic immune system in human survival"—and result in a human species with stronger immune systems, he speculated.


PREDICTION THREE
Humans to Achieve Electronic Immortality

A philosophy known as transhumanism sees humans taking charge of their evolution and transcending their biological limitations via technology. In essence, the old-fashioned evolution of On the Origin of Species may be beside the point: The future may belong to unnatural selection. Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, said Darwinian evolution "is happening on a very slow time scale now relative to other things that are leading to changes in the human condition"—cloning, genetic enhancement, robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, for starters. Transhumanism raises a spectacular array of possibilities, from supersoldiers and new breeds of athletes to immortal beings who, having had their brains scanned atom by atom, transfer their minds to computers. In addition to living forever, "uploaded" beings would be able to "travel at the speed of light as an information pattern," download themselves into robots for the occasional stroll through the real world, think faster when running on advanced operating systems, and cut their food budget down to zero, Bostrom imagines in his paper "The Transhumanist FAQ," available on the Humanity+ Web site.

If that were to happen, a new type of evolution would emerge, Bostrom said. "Evolutionary selection could occur in a population of uploads or artificial intelligence just as much as it could in a population of biological organisms," he told National Geographic News. "In fact, it might operate much faster there, because artificial intellects could reproduce much faster." Whereas the current human generational cycle takes some 20 years, a digitalized individual could replicate themselves in seconds or minutes, Bostrom said. Of course copying yourself isn't without complications, Bostrom acknowledges.

"Which one of them is you?" he writes. "Who owns your property? Who is married to your spouse?"


PREDICTION FOUR
New Era of Evolution Awaits on Off-World Colonies?

"Some major new isolating mechanism" would be needed for a new human species to arise, according to John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Despite up to 30,000 years of partial isolation among populations in places such as Australia and Papua New Guinea, human speciation did not occur, he noted. But if, in the far distant future, habitable planets beyond our solar system were colonized by Earth migrants, that could provide the necessary isolation for new human species to evolve. "If we had spacefaring people who went on one-way voyages to distant stars, that might be enough to trigger speciation," Hawks said. But, he added, "if you think about it, a small group of people went on a one-way voyage to [the Americas] 14,000 years ago, and then when new people [Europeans] showed up 500 years ago, they were still the same species."



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Odbijam da se evoluišem!

andrija2007 wrote:Odbijam da se evoluišem!

Neka te sa rajom!

andrija2007 wrote:Odbijam da se evoluišem!

nitko te nije ni pitao!