anonimus19 wrote:NIN wrote:
Odgovore na sva svoja pitanja mozes naci jedino ako ih zaista zelis pronaci jer oni postoje vec duze vrijeme i nalaze se u za to predvidjenoj literaturi! Onaj koji ih, s druge strane, ne zeli pronaci ni po koju cijenu on ce ih traziti u literaturi ispred dzamije gdje ih sigurno nece uspjeti naci; ...ali ce naci ono sto je ustvari i tazio - boga.
I da, kako kolega rece, nisu neki ostali majmuni a mi postali ljudi jer i oni i mi smo i dalje majmuni! Recimo, za lava, tigra ili jaguara ces ko iz topa reci da je macka jelde? Vidis, kad oni gledaju nas oni ce ko iz topa pomislit' "majmun, mmmmm...njam, njam." Mi smo, fakticki, samo jedna od vise vrsta visih majmuna (imas
majmune i
vise majmune ili covjekolike majmune, sto je isto - majmune karakteriziraju jos uvijek prisutan rep i jednostavniji socijalni mehanizmi dok visi majmuni nemaju rep, cesto su bipedalni i imaju izrazito velike mozgove sto znaci da imaju kompleksne socijalne mehanizme; takodjer, u engleskom jeziku podjela je konkretnija jer postoje zasebni termini za majmuna
monkey i za viseg majmuna
ape i u engleskom jeziku za sebe (ili mene, ako ti je draze) mozes komotno reci da si
ape).
Dakle, racionalni odgovori na pitanja koja postavljas itekako da postoje i na dohvat su ruke. Trebas se samo dobro psihicki pripremiti.
Odo' radit'...
Ja odgovore i to prave nasao davno, citajuci svu potrebnu literaturu. Osjetim dozu ironije u prvoj recenici. Ako imas predrasude prema necemu, onda ces naci ono sto zelis, a ne istinu. Ako bez predrasuda pristupas necemu, onda nisi realan/na i dovoljno objektivan/na da dodjes do pravih zakljucaka. I DA, prirpemio se ja odlicno psihicki
.
Ako se ti smatras majmunom, tebi na volju. Ja sam covjek i smatram da je tako od Adema a.s. do danas. Ti vjerujes da su ljudi nastali od majmuna, tacnije da smo
ape ili kako sam shvatio jos uvijek majmuni. brate majmune, nisam te prepoznao,izvini.
Evo sad nastavljam sa pitanjima, cilj je zivot sam po sebi, ali na koji nacin je on svrha i cilj sam sebi? Zasto smo mi nastali, kako je doslo do stvaranja svega ovoga oko nas i nas samih? Zasto ce nam potomstvo, kako to da imamo nagon za reprodukciju u sebi, kako je to sve nastalo iz "pramase" i da li je ona kao nezivo imala isti nagon, pa smo nastali ovakvi kakvi jesmo, zasto neke vrste imaju samo odredjene periode u toku godine sexualni nagon, a ljudi i peradi tokom cijele godine? Ako se tvrdi da je sve ono sto je u svemiru nekad bilo jedna maglica, koja se raspala, pa prosirila u svemiru, pa od nekih nastadose zvijezde, od nekih planete, od nekih komete, od nekih crne rupe...., pa onda formira se zemlja, idealna za zivot, pa onda se nekakva pramasa stvorila, u nju puko groma i nasta ameba, pa iz amebe mnogo vrsta koje su bile u vodi, pa onda neki skontali da im je bezze u vodi i izadjose na kopno, pa od onih koji izadjose na kopno, neki odoshe na drvo, neki u vazduh, od silnog nastojanja da polete narastose im i krila, a neki i dalje ostadose na zemlji!!!!!!
Ne bih vise detalja, stoga ostavljam drugima da mi sve ovo objasne!
Molim samo bez upucivanja na knjige koje objasnjavaju proces evolucije, citao ih. Bez odgovora. Hocu sustinske i objektivne i realne odgovore!
Nećeš ih dobiti. Sve što si nabrojao je hrpa pogrešnih interpretacija procesa evolucije - i ta pramasa i udar groma i ameba, niti su vrste evoluirale na način koji opisuješ, sve je to karikiranje najstarijih radova o evoluciji. Nažalost, umjesto da ti dadnem konkretniji odgovor, ipak ću morati da te uputim da nabaviš sebi literaturu jer sve to što si naveo je lijepo objašnjeno, ali na previše stranica da bi se to čak dalo i prepričati ovdje. Niko ovdje ne dobija platu da bi ti pojasnio stvari koje su drugi već pojasnili. Ako si čitao kao što tvrdiš knjige o evoluciji, bojim se da si ih vjerovatno čitao ili bez razmišljanja, ili si čitao pogrešne knjige, jer te stvari o amebi i slično zvuče kao iz slikovnice a ne iz ozbiljne knjige.
Pogotovo ti neću pisati kilometarske postove da bi ti na kraju samo rekao "nije me uvjerilo" jer imaš čvrst stav koji se neće mijenjati šta god ti ko rekao. Ovdje se postavljaš ko hadžija sa prekrštenim rukama, samo govoriš "dokažite mi" a mi moramo da ti donosimo dokaze. Ne ide to tako, za znanje se moraš sam potruditi.
Ja ću ti samo dati tuđi citat (ne da mi se da prepričavam) ovoga o amebi.
Darwin jeste možda upotrijebio primjer amebe kao jednostavnog organizma, ali to je bio 19 vijek i tada je ameba bila primjer najprostijeg poznatog organizma. Od tada je prošlo mnogo vremena i danas niko ne spominje tu amebu. Kada osporavaš evoluciju, uradi to sa novijom literaturom.
Sljedeći citat (nadam se da znaš engleski i imaš dosta vremena) je samo jedno od mogućih objašnjenja o onome što ti zoveš "nastanak amebe" a ostatak svijeta to zove nastanak života, nastanak samoreplicirajućih ćelija. Sam naučnik (evolucioni bioog Richard Dawkins, ovo je odlomak iz knjige "Sebični gen") NE TVRDI da se ovako moralo desiti, jer to niko ne može znati 100%, ali je objašnjenje prilično plauzibilno i nekoliko svjetlosnih godina je udaljeno od tih stvari sa munjom i amebom koje poistovjećuješ sa modernom teorijom evolucije:
Dugo je, ali se isplati pročitati za sve koje zanima tema nastanka života:
Richard Dawkins wrote:We do not know what chemical raw materials were abundant on earth before the coming of life, but among the plausible possibilities are water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia: all simple compounds known to be present on at least some of the other planets in our solar system. Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks—artificial simulation of primordial lightning. After a few weeks of this, something interesting is usually found inside the flask: a weak brown soup containing a large number of molecules more complex than the ones originally put in. In particular, amino acids have been found—the building blocks of proteins, one of the two great classes of biological molecules. Before these experiments were done, naturally-occurring amino acids would have been thought of as diagnostic of the presence of life. If they had been detected on, say Mars, life on that planet would have seemed a near certainty. Now, however, their existence need imply only the presence of a few simple gases in the atmosphere and some volcanoes, sunlight, or thundery weather. More recently, laboratory simulations of the chemical conditions of earth before the coming of life have yielded organic substances called purines and pyrimidines. These are building blocks of the genetic molecule, DNA itself.
Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the 'primeval soup' which biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores, or in klix suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules. Nowadays large organic molecules would not last long enough to be noticed: they would be quickly absorbed and broken down by bacteria or other living creatures. But bacteria and the rest of us are late-comers, and in those days large organic molecules could drift unmolested through the thickening broth.
At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself. This may seem a very unlikely sort of accident to happen. So it was. It was exceedingly improbable. In the lifetime of a man, things that are that improbable can be treated for practical purposes as impossible. That is why you will never win a big prize on the football pools. But in our human estimates of what is probable and what is not, we are not used to dealing in hundreds of millions of years. If you filled in pools coupons every week for a hundred million years you would very likely win several jackpots.
Actually a molecule that makes copies of itself is not as difficult to imagine as it seems at first, and it only had to arise once. Think of the replicator as a mould or template. Imagine it as a large molecule consisting of a complex chain of various sorts of building block molecules. The small building blocks were abundantly available in the soup surrounding the replicator. Now suppose that each building block has an affinity for its own kind. Then whenever a building block from out in the soup lands up next to a part of the replicator for which it has an affinity, it will tend to stick there. The building blocks that attach themselves in this way will automatically be arranged in a sequence that mimics that of the replicator itself. It is easy then to think of them joining up to form a stable chain just as in the formation of the original replicator. This process could continue as a progressive stacking up, layer upon layer. This is how crystals are formed. On the other hand, the two chains might split apart, in which case we have two replicators, each of which can go on to make further copies.
A more complex possibility is that each building block has affinity not for its own kind, but reciprocally for one particular other kind. Then the replicator would act as a template not for an identical copy, but for a kind of 'negative', which would in its turn re-make an exact copy of the original positive. For our purposes it does not matter whether the original replication process was positive-negative or positive-positive, though it is worth remarking that the modern equivalents of the first replicator, the DNA molecules, use positive-negative replication. What does matter is that suddenly a new kind of 'stability' came into the world. Previously it is probable that no particular kind of complex molecule was very abundant in the soup, because each was dependent on building blocks happening to fall by luck into a particular stable configuration. As soon as the replicator was born it must have spread its copies rapidly throughout the seas, until the smaller building block molecules became a scarce resource, and other larger molecules were formed more and more rarely.
So we seem to arrive at a large population of identical replicas. But now we must mention an important property of any copying process: it is not perfect. Mistakes will happen. I hope there are no misprints in this book, but if you look carefully you may find one or two. They will probably not seriously distort the meaning of the sentences, because they will be 'first generation' errors. But imagine the days before printing, when books such as the Gospels were copied by hand. All scribes, however careful, are bound to make a few errors, and some are not above a little wilful 'improvement'. If they all copied from a single master original, meaning would not be greatly perverted. But let copies be made from other copies, which in their turn were made from other copies, and errors will start to become cumulative and serious. We tend to regard erratic copying as a bad thing, and in the case of human documents it is hard to think of examples where errors can be described as improvements. I suppose the scholars of the Septuagint could at least be said to have started something big when they mistranslated the Hebrew word for 'young woman' into the Greek word for 'virgin', coming up with the prophecy: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son .. .'* Anyway, as we shall see, erratic copying in biological replicators can in a real sense give rise to improvement, and it was essential for the progressive evolution of life that some errors were made. We do not know how accurately the original replicator molecules made their copies. Their modern descendants, the DNA molecules, are astonishingly faithful compared with the most high-fidelity human copying process, but even they occasionally make mistakes, and it is ultimately these mistakes that make evolution possible. Probably the original replicators were far more erratic, but in any case we may be sure that mistakes were made, and these mistakes were cumulative.
As mis-copyings were made and propagated, the primeval soup became filled by a population not of identical replicas, but of several varieties of replicating molecules, all 'descended' from the same ancestor. Would some varieties have been more numerous than others? Almost certainly yes. Some varieties would have been inherently more stable than others. Certain molecules, once formed, would be less likely than others to break up again. These types would become relatively numerous in the soup, not only as a direct logical consequence of their 'longevity', but also because they would have a long time available for making copies of themselves. Replicators of high longevity would therefore tend to become more numerous and, other things being equal, there would have been an 'evolutionary trend' towards greater longevity in the population of molecules.
But other things were probably not equal, and another property of a replicator variety that must have had even more importance in spreading it through the population was speed of replication or 'fecundity'. If replicator molecules of type A make copies of themselves on average once a week while those of type B make copies of themselves once an hour, it is not difficult to see that pretty soon type A molecules are going to be far outnumbered, even if they 'live' much longer than B molecules. There would therefore probably have been an 'evolutionary trend' towards higher 'fecundity' of molecules in the soup. A third characteristic of replicator molecules which would have been positively selected is accuracy of replication. If molecules of type X and type Y last the same length of time and replicate at the same rate, but X makes a mistake on average every tenth replication while Y makes a mistake only every hundredth replication, Y will obviously become more numerous. The X contingent in the population loses not only the errant 'children' themselves, but also all their descendants, klix or potential.
If you already know something about evolution, you may find something slightly paradoxical about the last point. Can we reconcile the idea that copying errors are an essential prerequisite for evolution to occur, with the statement that natural selection favours high copying-fidelity? The answer is that although evolution may seem, in some vague sense, a 'good thing', especially since we are the product of it, nothing actually 'wants' to evolve. Evolution is something that happens, willy-nilly, in spite of all the efforts of the replicators (and nowadays of the genes) to prevent it happening. Jacques Monod made this point very well in his Herbert Spencer lecture, after wryly remarking: 'Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it!'
To return to the primeval soup, it must have become populated by stable varieties of molecule; stable in that either the individual molecules lasted a long time, or they replicated rapidly, or they replicated accurately. Evolutionary trends toward these three kinds of stability took place in the following sense: if you had sampled the soup at two different times, the later sample would have contained a higher proportion of varieties with high longevity/fecundity/copying-fidelity. This is essentially what a biologist means by evolution when he is speaking of living creatures, and the mechanism is the same—natural selection.
Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain totally unchanged whether we label them 'great' or not. Similarly, the story of the replicator molecules probably happened something like the way I am telling it, regardless of whether we choose to call them 'living'. Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a word like 'living' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were the ancestors of life; they were our founding fathers.
The next important link in the argument, one that Darwin himself laid stress on (although he was talking about animals and plants, not molecules) is competition. The primeval soup was not capable of supporting an infinite number of replicator molecules. For one thing, the earth's size is finite, but other limiting factors must also have been important. In our picture of the replicator acting as a template or mould, we supposed it to be bathed in a soup rich in the small building block molecules necessary to make copies. But when the replicators became numerous, building blocks must have been used up at such a rate that they became a scarce and precious resource. Different varieties or strains of replicator must have competed for them. We have considered the factors that would have increased the numbers of favoured kinds of replicator. We can now see that less-favoured varieties must actually have become less numerous because of competition, and ultimately many of their lines must have gone extinct. There was a struggle for existence among replicator varieties. They did not know they were struggling, or worry about it; the struggle was conducted without any hard feelings, indeed without feelings of any kind. But they were struggling, in the sense that any mis-copying that resulted in a new higher level of stability, or a new way of reducing the stability of rivals, was automatically preserved and multiplied. The process of improvement was cumulative. Ways of increasing stability and of decreasing rivals' stability became more elaborate and more efficient. Some of them may even have 'discovered' how to break up molecules of rival varieties chemically, and to use the building blocks so released for making their own copies. These proto-carnivores simultaneously obtained food and removed competing rivals. Other replicators perhaps discovered how to protect themselves, either chemically, or by building a physical wall of protein around themselves. This may have been how the first living cells appeared. Replicators began not merely to exist, but to construct for themselves containers, vehicles for their continued existence. The replicators that survived were the ones that built survival machines for themselves to live in. The first survival machines probably consisted of nothing more than a protective coat. But making a living got steadily harder as new rivals arose with better and more effective survival machines. Survival machines got bigger and more elaborate, and the process was cumulative and progressive.
Još jedan ugao promišljanja koji sam zaobišla. Koliko ih li je još, voljela bih da znam