Forum Klix.ba

statix wrote:Ako je neko spreman kopirati ( ) knjigu The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution (Sean Carroll) moze preko PP dogovor. Na netu se moze skinuti samo kao audiobook. grrrrrrrr

ja71 wrote: {...}
Nadam se da je jasno sta sam zelio kritikovati: a to je da je da je Teorija Evolucije tacna dok se ne dokaze suprotno.
Obratno, tacnost se dokazuje a dokle se ne dokaze mozemo samo reci "ne znamo"

ja71 wrote: {...}
Obratno, teorije svoju istinitost moraju dokazivati a ne da se dokazuje iskljucivost teorije.
{...}

Definition
At the beginning let us define irreducible complexity. A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. The definition is given by Michael Behe.
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations).The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway. Intelligent design advocate William Dembski gives this definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.
History
The argument from irreducible complexity is a descendant of the teleological argument for God (the argument from design or from complexity).This states that because certain things in nature are very complicated, they must have been designed. William Paley famously argued, in his 1802 watchmaker analogy, that complexity in nature implies a God for the same reason that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.
Galen (1st and 2nd centuries AD) wrote about the large number of parts of the body and their relationships, which observation was cited as evidence for creation.
The mousetrap analogy
Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of five interacting pieces, all of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, as the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, he asserts that biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function.
Miller observes that various subsets of the five components can be devised to form cooperative units, ones that have different functions from the mousetrap and so, in biological terms, could form functional spandrels before being adapted to the new function of catching mice. Not much of a mousetrap, but a hell of a spitball launcher.... I realized why [Behe's] mousetrap analogy had bothered me. Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of E.coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system. Behe argues that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be wholly explained by current models of evolution.
The bacterial flagellum is only one among many thousands of intricate, well-designed, molecular machines. Furthermore, take these same principles of design and "irreducible complexity" and apply them to marvels such as the human eye, ear, heart, lungs and brain. For instance, the retina has approximately 137 million special cells that respond to light and send messages to the brain. The retina cells receive light impressions, which are translated to electric pulses and sent to the brain via the optic nerve. A special section of the brain called the visual cortex interprets the pulses to color, contrast, depth, etc., which allows us to see "pictures" of our world. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. It would take dozens of Cray supercomputers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task. Obviously, if all the separate subsystems aren't present and performing perfectly at the same instant, the eye won't work and has no purpose. How did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The foregoing represents the core of "irreducible complexity." Complex organs made up of separate but necessary subsystems cannot be the result of random chance.
Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded: I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

nesquik wrote:

Definition
At the beginning let us define irreducible complexity.{...}

nesquik wrote:

Definition
At the beginning let us define irreducible complexity. A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. The definition is given by Michael Behe.
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations).The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway. Intelligent design advocate William Dembski gives this definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.
History
The argument from irreducible complexity is a descendant of the teleological argument for God (the argument from design or from complexity).This states that because certain things in nature are very complicated, they must have been designed. William Paley famously argued, in his 1802 watchmaker analogy, that complexity in nature implies a God for the same reason that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.
Galen (1st and 2nd centuries AD) wrote about the large number of parts of the body and their relationships, which observation was cited as evidence for creation.
The mousetrap analogy
Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of five interacting pieces, all of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, as the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, he asserts that biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function.
Miller observes that various subsets of the five components can be devised to form cooperative units, ones that have different functions from the mousetrap and so, in biological terms, could form functional spandrels before being adapted to the new function of catching mice. Not much of a mousetrap, but a hell of a spitball launcher.... I realized why [Behe's] mousetrap analogy had bothered me. Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of E.coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system. Behe argues that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be wholly explained by current models of evolution.
The bacterial flagellum is only one among many thousands of intricate, well-designed, molecular machines. Furthermore, take these same principles of design and "irreducible complexity" and apply them to marvels such as the human eye, ear, heart, lungs and brain. For instance, the retina has approximately 137 million special cells that respond to light and send messages to the brain. The retina cells receive light impressions, which are translated to electric pulses and sent to the brain via the optic nerve. A special section of the brain called the visual cortex interprets the pulses to color, contrast, depth, etc., which allows us to see "pictures" of our world. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. It would take dozens of Cray supercomputers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task. Obviously, if all the separate subsystems aren't present and performing perfectly at the same instant, the eye won't work and has no purpose. How did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The foregoing represents the core of "irreducible complexity." Complex organs made up of separate but necessary subsystems cannot be the result of random chance.
Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded: I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

statix wrote:@nesquik
Zapitaj se kakve fosile ocekujes u određenom geoloskom razdoblju (npr. kasni Devon), ili kakve fosile predviđa TE. Nakon toga, iscitaj koji su to fosili pronađeni i da li podrzavaju TE. Ako niti jedan ti ne bude dokaz evolucije tj. ne mozes ga smatrati prelaznim fosilom, onda nam napisi sta za tebe predstavljaju na primjer Tiktalik i Akantostega. Pri tome, imaj na umu koliko je tesko da se fosil ocuva, a narocito pronadje.

statix wrote:{...} Pri tome, imaj na umu koliko je tesko da se fosil ocuva, a narocito pronadje.

In Vino Veritas wrote:Zapitam se stalno, da li bi oni koji neprekidno spominju "prijelazne oblike", "karike koje nedostaju", i ostale da ih dalje ne nabrajam "argumente" u svom izlaganju, to isto cinili kada bi spoznali koliko neznanja, neobrazovanosti i neupucenosti u ovom slucaju o teoriji evolucije i samoj evoluciju, ali i o elementarnim stvarima iz drugih naucnih oblasti, kao i svijetu koji nas okruzuje, pokazuju. Samim spominjanjem ijednog od ovih "termina" u bilo kom kontekstu ih cini diskreditiranim za bilo kakav razgovor, bilo ozbiljan ili neozbiljan na tu temu. Ako ce oni u svojoj konverzaciji neprestano ponavljati iste stvari, onda stvarno...
Mnogo puta je objasnjeno, cak i na ovom forumu, a i na mnogim drugim, narocito na religijskim i filozofskim o tome, (na kojima da se razumijemo, ova tema nema sta traziti) bez obzira na razne i mnogobrojne neproduktivne komentare, nadje se mnogih koji na lijep nacin i smisleno objasne mnogo toga, pogotovo ove osnovne stvari.
Ne znam za druge forumase, a citajuci mnogobrojne forume, i na sa-x, i na indexu, tuzlarijama i mnogim drugim, jer obicno kada mi se neka tema ucini interesantnom (obicno sasvim slucajno, nekada cak citajuci drugu temu) citam sto vise mogu o njoj, forumi su nevjerovatno dobra polazna tacka, pogotovo ako su konstruktivni. Kada nacnem neku temu, onda nema sanse da je od pocetka ne procitam, tada se jako primjete svi piloti koji upadaju i tjeraju teme da se vrte po ne znam koliko puta u krug, da se neke davno recene i objasnjene (apslorvirane, da tako kazem) stvari nebrojeno puta objasnjavaju. Zato bih sve forumase savjetovao, kada god pridjete nekoj temi, procitajte je od pocetka, prije nego sto pocnete komentarisati, mnoge stvari ce vam biti jasnije i izbjece se potreba da se stalno vrti u krug, da se ljudi frustriraju i da tema poprima negativne konotacije.
Tako ce mislim i teme biti kvalitetnije i kvantitetnije obradjene, vise stvari ce se konkretnih i konstruktivnijih saznati i procitati. Mislim da se ne treba previse ni obazirati na te pilote (ovo je ipak forum NAUKA, mjesto za religijske rasprave je na drugom mjestu, religijske i nenaucne), nego nastaviti sa unaprijedjivanjem teme sa novim informacijama i saznanjima, sto mislim da NIN odlicno cini sa ovom temom.

Jos jednom Hvala NIN na tome, oprostite ako sam koga uvrijedio bilo cime, ako sam off-topic, ako mi je post malo duzi ili na stamparskim greskama(malo mi tastatura steka, nadam se da bar nemam pravopisnih), trudicu se da sve od navedenog ne cinim vise.

Nije to neznanje.
To je najobicnija panika vjerskih institucija jer se boje gubitka uticaja nad ljudskim zivotima.
Jer ako pocnemo odbacivati koncept kreacije, odjednom cemo se zapitati koji klinac ti ljudi (svestenstvo, uleme, itd.) rade.
Znaci njihovo postojanje bi se svelo na ispunjavanje tradicije i rituala.
Ustvari to se vec sad desava u izvjesnoj mjeri...

statix wrote:

Nije to neznanje.
To je najobicnija panika vjerskih institucija jer se boje gubitka uticaja nad ljudskim zivotima.
Jer ako pocnemo odbacivati koncept kreacije, odjednom cemo se zapitati koji klinac ti ljudi (svestenstvo, uleme, itd.) rade.
Znaci njihovo postojanje bi se svelo na ispunjavanje tradicije i rituala.
Ustvari to se vec sad desava u izvjesnoj mjeri...

To se svakako ne moze desiti, jer kad covjeka suocis sa egzistencijalnim brigama, veca je mogucnost da ce se okrenuti onoj strani koja ulijeva sigurnost i smisao njegovoj egzistenciji.

Bellydancesuperstar wrote:..., ali mi vjernici znamo ... da nas je stvorio naš Stvoritelj. Slava Bogu!