Darwinova teorija evolucije. Naše društvo. Kao što vidimo u našem društvu u kojem se umnožava okrutnost i nasilje, nije li to jasan dokaz da se. Kao otkriće, načelo odabira glavni je Darwinov doprinos teoriji evolucije, koju on objašnjava borbom za opstanak među pojedinim organizmima, od kojih. Zašto je Darvinova teorija evolucije pogrešna, zašto u kambrijumskim slojevima ne nalazimo fosile prelaznih formi iz kojih bi trebalo da su.
|Published (Last):||23 September 2017|
|PDF File Size:||19.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Decembar 31, Molim vas prijavite se ili se registrujte. Da li kod varijacija dolazi do bogacenja ili siromasenja genetskog potencijala?
Eto to je genetski potencijal. Sve promjene koje se desavaju, a to su male promjene, velikih i nema. Sva ta varijabilnost koja je kod osnovnih tipova i vrsta bila prisutna i od kojih su nastale danasnje velike raznolikosti. Kakva je to glupost, to je Paster jos prije vise od god. Pa tek smijurija od Foks-Milerovog do Venterovog eksperimenta. Da je tacno da zivot moze nastati od nezive materije danas bi to moguce bilo u eksperimentima dokazati. Medjutim to je nemoguce.
Zivo moze samo da nastane od zivog. A sad malo o fosilima. Fosila ima vise od milijarde primjeraka, koji daju vrsta. Evolucionisti kazu ima na desetine hiljada prelaznih oblika. Kakva je to neistina. Ne postoji nijedan prelazni oblik. Sve zivotinje imaju vec formirane karakteristike, a ne prelazne, to su mozaicki a ne prelazni oblici. Da stvar bude gora, uzimaju se samo oni primjerci mozaicnih oblika, koji se mogu uklopiti u vec zadatu pretkoncepciju zamisljene linije evolucije. Po kom osnovu ne znamo.
Ali evolucionisti ne mogu dokazati ni procese evolucije, a kamoli, zasto neki ne evoluiraju. A sad malo o Arheopteriksu. Arheopteriksa evolucionisti uzimaju kao prelazni oblik, zato sto ima neke karakteristike gmizavaca a neke ptica. I onda nabrajaju zube, kandze, vilica itd. Kandze imaju i danasnje ptice Turaco i Hoatzin, pa ih niko ne racuna u prelazne oblike, i nemaju kandze zato sto ih imaju gmizavci, nego zato sto im trebaju.
Zubi nisu nikakav argument, nemaju ih ni svi gmizavci, nema ih kornjaca. Vilica-sto se tice vilice, ona nije nikakav argument u prilog TE. Tadasnji uslovi su bili drugaciji, dokazano je i oko toga nema spora da je zivot vise bujao. Sigurno su biljke i zivotinje bile krupnije, sa vilicom ptica Arheopt. Svrha je u pitanju, a ne porijeklo od gmazova.
TE nije “zamisljena”,vec je proizasla iz naucnih cinjenica,kao objasnjenje tih cinjenica-kao nesto sto ih cinjenice najbolje povezuje i objasnjava u ovom trenutku-ukoliko se pojavi neka teorija koja daje bolje rezultate pribliznije realnosti ,naravno da ce TE biti odbacena a ta nova teorija prihvacena-zasada je TE nesto sto najbolje objasnjava nama danas dostupne cinjenice.
I get up every morning determined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Evolucijd this makes planning my day difficult.
Ok, konkretizacija diskusije u skladu sa tvojim predlogom. For mutations under epistasis to produce innovation, there must be a way for them to teoeija together synergistic epistasis. This is often assumed but has not been observed. In a new paper in Science,3 Khan et al, evoluxije with Richard Lenski [Michigan State], leader of the longest-running experiment on evolution of E.
Like this, for darvinpva An increased number of spelling errors in a teofija retyped in series by a number of different people does not add drvinova to a new, better letter over time? Coppedge also notes the way the science media handled the news, for example: Not to Dembski and other members of the No Free Lunch club. She-Wolf za Avgust 17, Eusthenopteron foordi After the capture of a living Coelacanth, evolutionists realized that this was not a transitional form.
So they next settled on depicting the fish E. However, anatomical comparisons of tailed water frog and Eusthenopteron revealed profound differences between the two. This meant that evolutionists had to suppose another transitional form between them.
However, no skeleton belonging to this theoretical transition between Eusthenopteron foordi and the tailed water frog Icthyostega has ever been found. Now, the two favorite subjects for most darvonova the contemporary evolutionary scenarios regarding tetrapod origins are Eusthenopteron an extinct fish and Acanthostega an extinct amphibian. Robert Carroll, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, makes comments on these allegedly related forms: Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in the transition between fish and amphibians.
Of anatomical features that could be compared between these two genera, 91 showed changes associated with adaptation to life on land. This is dadvinova more than the number of changes that occurred in any one of the transitions involving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods. According to evolutionary theory, the origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor during the Devonian Period was one of the major events in the history of life on earth.
The ‘drying pond’ hypothesis was proposed darvonova explain the selection pressures behind the transition.
According to this hypothesis, the tetrapods evolved as fishes became progressively better adapted to terrestrial conditions during prolonged episodes of drought.
Recently, however, the assumption that feet and evolucij evolved to facilitate life on the land has been called into question. The ‘earliest’ known tetrapods with feet and legs are now thought to have been aquatic animals; evolutionists therefore argue that feet and legs evolved in a shallow water environment and were only later co-opted for use on the land.
This paper reviews the radical changes in thinking about the fish-tetrapod transition that have taken place in the evolutionary community. Teoija also considers the chimeromorphic nature of Devonian tetrapods and fishes, and offers some critical comments on the evolutionary interpretation of their fossil record. Evolutionists believe that tetrapods—i. The fossil record of Devonian tetrapods is often presented as compelling evidence of this major evolutionary transition.
The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods,3 it begins with these words: After about million years of earlier evolution, the vertebrates—animals with backbones—had produced an explosion of fishlike animals that lived in the lakes, rivers, lagoons, and estuaries of the time. The strange thing that happened during teoija later parts of the Devonian period is that some of these fishlike animals evolved limbs with digits—fingers and toes.
Over the ensuing million years or so, these so-called tetrapods gradually evolved from their aquatic ancestry into walking terrestrial vertebrates, and these have dominated the land since their own explosive radiation allowed them to colonize and exploit the land and its opportunities.
The tetrapods, with their limbs, fingers, and toes, include humans, so this distant Devonian event is profoundly significant for humans as well as for the planet. I will also consider the mosaic distribution of characters that we observe in Devonian tetrapods and fishes, the problems that it poses for evolutionary theory, and how it might be understood in a creationist framework.
Tetrapods were thought to have evolved during the Devonian, a period associated in many parts of the world with sediments stained red by iron evolucie.
TEORIJA Archives » Article Collection.
Classic red beds, such as the Siluro-Devonian rocks of Europe the Old Red Sandstone and their North American equivalents the Catskill and Escuminac formationshave often been interpreted as the product of hot, semi-desert environments with seasonal wetness.
This led many to speculate that an increasingly arid climate was a major influence on the evolution of air-breathing vertebrates. A classic paper by Barrell6 set the scene for much future discussion.
The development of a new system of breathing allowed fishes to survive the drought conditions by moving between bodies of water. Those fishes with more limb-like appendages were better able to make the journey and this ultimately led to the evolution of limbs with digits. Reconstruction of Ichthyostega, showing skull, vertebral column, and limbs, and its hind limb based on a dwrvinova collected in Note the seven digits on the hind limb from Clack.
Ichthyostega is about one metre long with a broad, flat head, short, barrel-shaped body, stocky legs, large pelvic and pectoral girdles, ddarvinova a rib cage with broad, overlapping ribs Figure 1.
It is very evidently a tetrapod, with limbs rather than fins. Nevertheless, Ichthyostega has some fish-like characteristics, including a lateral line system and a tail with bony fin rays.
Early reconstructions portrayed Ichthyostega as a darvinoca creature but most later ones depicted it as a predominantly terrestrial animal e. As recently asa major vertebrate palaeontology text described Ichthyostega as a fairly typical land animal with the usual complement of teorijq digits on the hind limb.
The search for evolutionary ancestors Evolutionists sought the ancestry of the tetrapods among the lobe-finned fishes. Although the lobe-fins are dominant in the fossil fish faunas of the Palaeozoic conventionally to million years agothey are represented today by only four surviving genera the coelacanth Latimeria and three genera of lungfish.
InCope and others argued that tetrapods had evolved from the crossopterygians, the group of lobe-fins that includes the coelacanths. This is the fish that was commonly illustrated, in popular books on fossils, as hauling itself up onto Devonian riverbanks e. Nevertheless, there was evidently a substantial discontinuity in the fossil record between terrestrial vertebrates like Ichthyostega and their presumed ancestors.
This was reflected in creationist treatments of the problem21 and acknowledged telrija evolutionists, such as Carroll22 who wrote: Most are represented darvionva single specimens; Acanthostega is unique in that it represents a stratigraphic range. Givetian is a subdivision of the Middle Devonian, Frasnian and Famennian are subdivisions of the Upper Devonian, and Tournaisian is a subdivision of the Lower Carboniferous.
Acanthostega in a swimming posture from Clack. New ichthyostegid material, including a well-preserved and articulated hind limb, collected by an expedition to East Greenland inrevealed that Ichthyostega was polydactylous, with seven digits on the hind limb Figure 1.
Furthermore, the flattened bones and inflexible ankle of the hind limb suggests that it was more like the paddle of an elephant seal than the leg of a terrestrial animal. Acanthostega is also much more completely known as a result of material collected by the expedition, including the first tsorija remains. Several articulated specimens were found in a single lens of rock, dagvinova as a rarvinova flash flood deposit.
The gill skeleton was fish-like50 and it has been suggested that Acanthostega had internal gills somewhat similar to those of the Australian lungfish Neoceratodus.
Acanthostega had a tail with fin rays, even larger than that of Ichthyostega Figure 2. The fin rays also extended further beneath the tail, in similar fashion to those of a lungfish, suggesting that Acanthostega was a thoroughly aquatic creature.
This conclusion is supported by the morphology of the fore and hind limbs which are difficult to interpret as load-bearing structures; rather, darvinva appear to be designed for swimming. As with Ichthyostega, perhaps the most extraordinary feature was the number of digits. An darvibova fore limb revealed eight digits in a paddle-like arrangement Figure 3.
Clack51 speculates that they may have been enclosed in some kind of webbing.