Vaša ocena: 
Ocena 4,0 od 7 glasov
Ocenite to novico!
Raziskovalci so na severovzhodu Kitajske našli fosil ptice s štirimi krili, ki je podoben dinozavru. Menijo, da gre za manjkajoči člen v evoluciji dinozavrov, ki so se razvili v ptice.
Kitajski raziskovalci so dobro ohranjeni fosil Anchiornis huxleyi našli v pokrajini Ljaoning. "Ptič dinozaver " naj bi živel na tistem območju pred 160 miljoni let, so zapisali v strokovnem članku znanstvene revije Nature. Kot je za Reuters pojasnil vodja raziskave Šing Šu, celoten trup živali meri manj kot 50 centimetrov, dolžina lobanje pa šest centimetrov.
One of the famous examples to prove evolution is the horse series in which the first supposed horse ancestor, the five-toed, dog-sized, 10-12-inch-tall Hyracotherium, gradually evolved to the modern-looking one-toed horse.
…here we examin some of the problems of the horse evolution hypothesis.
One of the famous examples to prove evolution is the horbievolutionhorsese series in which the first supposed horse ancestor, the five-toed, dog-sized, 10-12-inch-tall Hyracotherium, gradually evolved to the modern-looking one-toed horse.
The first scientist who came up with this horse evolution idea was the American paleontologists Dr. Othniel C. Marsh of Yale. According to his theory the evolutionary horse genealogy is as follows: Hyrocotherium > Orohippus > Epihippus > Mesohippus > Miohippus > Parahippus > Merychippus > Dinohippus > Equus (modern horses). 1
Shortly after him, in 1951, the horse series hypothesis was thoroughly analyzed, and due to its many inconsistencies refuted by the well known paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson.
“…paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson reexamined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled [by Othniel Marsh’s 1874 horse evolution paper]. In his book Horses (1951), he showed that there was no simple, gradual unilateral development at all. … Marsh arranged his fossils to “lead up” to the one surviving species, blithely ignoring many inconsistencies and any contradictory evidence.
Ironically, his famous reconstruction of horse evolution was copied by anthropologists.” (Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution , 1990, Henry Holt and Company, Inc., page 222)
Although some paleontologists don’t believe anymore that any of these fossil horses are direct ancestors of any of the others, the horse series are still used in many text books as proof of evolution.
In 1944, in his book Tempo and Mode in Evolution, G. G. Simpson wrote: “Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually, there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists”.
Let see if his opinion is outdated by examining some of the problems of the horse evolution hypothesis.
The problem already starts with the first horse, the 10-12 inches tall Hyrocotherium. Not only is its origin unknown, i.e. no fossil record is connected to it, but according to evidences it also simultaneously coexisted with Orohippus, and Epihippus. Moreover, all these three supposedly different horse species are very similar to each other except their increasing sizes.
Here we can remark that simultaneously appearing and coexisting animals in history cannot be arranged into ancestral relationships. Thus they don’t prove gradual evolution.
Further, according to Francis Hitching[2] the already millions of years ago extinct Eohippus also called Hyracotherium, is almost identical to the mammal known as Hyrax that still lives in Africa, but has not the slightest connection with horses. Thus, the supposed evolutionary connection between Orohippus and Eohippus, a dog-sized, five-toed creature with a short neck, short snout, short legs, and a long tail, that lived about 75 million years ago, is also very questionable. Aditionally, some of the later horses in the evolutionary line after Eohippus – as Gordon R. Taylor the Chief Science Advisor of BBC observes – are smaller instead of bigger.
Actually the Hyracotherium can hardly be classified among the horse species, as Jonathan Sarfati wrote in the Scientific American: “Even informed evolutionists regard horse evolution as a bush rather than a sequence. But the so-called Eohippus is properly called Hyracotherium, and has little that could connect it with horses at all. The other animals in the “sequence” actually show hardly any more variation between them than that within horses today. One non-horse and many varieties of the true horse kind does not make a sequence”.[4]
The next huge problem is the morphological gap between the Epihippus and Mesohippus which is all of a sudden about two times bigger than its predecessor. The changes from one horse species to another, especially in this case, are left without any real explanation.
As in the case of Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, the similarites between Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus are also almost unnoticeable. Except for the size, there are no any major evolutionary changes. The sudden, great change between Meryhippus and Dinohippus is seen in their size and in decreasing the number of toes to only one.
There are different horse series that exemplify evolution and the Pliohippus is mentioned to be the first one-toed horse before the Equus (the modern horse). An article in National Geographic (January 1981, p.74) reported a result of archeological researches around the Nebraska volcano, also called a ‘prehistoric Pompeii’, where a fossilized one-toed horse and a three-toed horse hoof have been found, both a victim of the same eruption. The title of the article suggested a newly discovered proof of evolution saying: ‘An evolutionary moment is frozen in time. Complete skeletons of the horse Pliohippus verify the transition of the primitive three-toed variety to the one-toed type ten million years ago.’
Noticeably, the three-toed and one-toed horses both existed side by side, in the same locality. This hardly gives evidence of one being the ancestor of the other. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that the Pliohippus could have been the predecessor of the Equus. The Pliohippus had deep facial fossae, whereas the Equus has none; the Pliohippus’s teeth are curved, but those of Equus are straight.
All in all, these fossils cannot demonstrate that the transitions were due to random variations and natural selection, so they fail to support Darwinian macroevolution.
“… while the overall picture of equid evolution is well known, the details are surprisingly poorly understood, especially for the later Pliocene and Pleistocene, ca. 3 million to 0.01 million years (Ma) ago, and nowhere more so than in the Americas. There is no consensus on the number of equid species or even the number of lineages that existed in these continents”.[1]
More inconsistencies in the horse series
The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence.
“There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare. For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19: Eohippus and Hyracothedum had 18 pairs of ribs; Orohippus had only 15 pairs; then Pliohippus jumped to 19; and Equus scoff! is back to 18. Also, the lumbers of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses.” —Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.
There are no transitional forms between each of these “horses.” As with all the other fossils, each horse suddenly appears in the fossil record.
“[The] fossils of these horses are widely scattered in Europe and North America. There is no place where they occur in rock layers, one above another. There is no sequence that would indicate that the largest developed from the smallest. Some of the difference in size may be accounted for by the difference in feed. In 1942, a herd of horses was found in a box canyon in Southern California. Three of them were caught and lifted out with ropes and pulleys. Due to poor feed, their backs were no higher than a table. Later a colt was born to these captives, and with good feed it grew much larger than its parents. Since a difference in size due to feed is an acquired characteristic, it is not inherited and does not account for permanent changes in a species.”
One of the problems is that because the horses existed on different continents, it becomes a stretch to assume they shared genetic information. Moreover, to use such and any mixture of horse series from different continents like India, America and Europe to prove gradual evolution is a logical fallacy called circumstantial evidence or an assumption that physical evidences are causally related.
Thus, many problems, like poorly understood details of horse evolution, co-existence of supposed evolutionary successive species, disagreements on how to classify fossils into species, etc – all these indicate that horse evolution is rather a wishful conjecture of scientists than a well established, verified scientific theory.
References
1. Weinstock et al., “Evolution, Systematics, and Phylogeography of Pleistocene Horses in the New World: A Molecular Perspective,” Public Library of Science: Biology, Volume 3 | Issue 8 | AUGUST 2005.
2. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, pp. 16-17, 19
3. A Search for Order in Complexity, Second Edition, By Leslie MacKenzie, David K. Arwine, Edward J. Shewan, Michael J. McHugh. Page 297
4. See J. Sarfati, The non-evolution of the horse, Creation 21(3):28–31, June–August 1999.
Related discoveries
“Traditionally, fossil-hunters had sought magnificent specimens for their museums and exhibited them as a series of individuals, like O.C. Marsh’s famous linear ‘progression’ of individual horse skeletons. Simpson made the evolution of the horse one of his specialties; his detailed quantitative studies, published in his classic book, Horses (1951), exploded Marsh’s ’single-line’ evolution of the horse from a fox-sized, hoofless ancestor.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 406.
“Horses and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600 millimeters long connected to muscle fibers less than 6 millimeters long. Such short muscles can change length only by a few millimeters as the animal moves, and seem unlikely to be of much use to large mammals. The tendons function as passive springs, and it has been assumed that the short muscle fibers are redundant, the remnants of longer fibers that have lost their function over the course of evolution. But Wilson and colleagues argue… that these fibers might protect bones and tendons from potentially damaging vibrations….
Their experiments show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging vibrations following the impact of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a running animal hits the ground, the impact sets the leg vibrating; the frequency of the vibrations is relatively high – for example, 30-40 Hz in horses – so many cycles of vibration would occur while the foot was on the ground if there were no damping.
The vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon are susceptible to fatigue failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is the accumulation of damage resulting from repeated application of stresses. Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress fractures suffered by both human athletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may explain at least some cases of tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very short muscle fibers protect both bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping out vibrations…”[a]
This wonderful discovery of the function of muscle fibers certainly adds to the argument of design. Design is discovered only by understanding the biochemical and physiological structures in the minutest details without any prejudice.
Reference:
a. R. Mcneill Alexander, “Biomechanics: Damper For Bad Vibrations”, Nature, 20-27 December 2001
8k
V 12-ih delih je.
Pa kje vi jemljete te številke??? Dejstvo je samo eno! Živi organizmi so nastali s preprostim metabolizmom, ta se je kasneje prilagajal vplivu okolja in dobili smo evolucijo...v bistvu se je naše življenje, začelo kot navadna razgradnja organskih molekul! In te vaše številke 1: (ne vem kašni cifri in ne vem koliko nulam) so navaden manipulatorski bull-shit zrele le za v cerkev za pranje možganov. dejstvo je da so si številke zmislili LJUDJE za lažjo predstavo in prikaz matematično - fizikalnih pojavov v naravi in glede na to, da te številke nimajo nobene veze z objektivno realnostjo in da narava operira s svojimi ciframi še ne pomeni, da obstaja neka višja sila! Primer je število Π (PI.) Čisto navadno razmerje med obsegom kroga in njegovim premerom, nekaj najosnovnejšega v naravi, pa je sama cifra 3,141592653589793 23846264338327950288419716939937510 58209..............
drugi tak primer je gravitacijska konstanta tudi nekaj najosnovnejšega v naravi: (6,67428....(+-)0,00067...)*10^(-11) m^3 kg^(-1) s^(-2)
tretji tak primer je indukcijska konstanta tudi nekaj najosnovnejšega v naravi:
1,25664....*10^(-6) Vs/Am
in takih primerov je nešteto, kar pa pomeni samo eno in to je, da narava operira z drugačnimi ciframi in razmerji kot pa to počnemo mi...in nobena razmerja s človeškimi ciframi ne dokazujejo čisto nič, k večjemu to, da edini ki potrebujemo prilagoditve številk smo ljudje in bomo tako lažje razumeli pojave v naravi.
In dejstvo je še to, da se je to življenje razvilo na tem planetu pod vplivi okolja, ki delujejo tukaj, zaenkrat ne vemo za noben tak planet, kar pomeni da lahko zaenkrat živimo le tukaj. Če bi se ti vplivi v preteklosti spremenili in bi narava danes bila drugačna kot jo poznamo, bi temu primerno izgledali tudi mi! In dokler so pogoji za potek bioorganskih intereakcij do takrat bo obstajalo nekaj čemur pravimo življenje za nekatere je to čudež in je treba takoj teči v cerkev za druge je to le izredno kompleksen fizikalno kemijski proces, še ena s človeške perspektive skrajno "zajebana" konstanta, vendar z naravnega stališča je pa to nekaj čisto nomalnega. In ko nas več ne bo, pa ne mislim samo ljudi...ampak materije kot take, ker čez 20mrd let se bo vesolje tako razširilo in pospešilo, da bo materija razpadla na subatomskem nivoju in bo edina stvar med katero boste lahko zbirali singularnost ali pa radijacija; takrat bomo komaj videli ali je inteligenca sposobna obstajat tudi brez fizikalno kemijskih procesov v čisti energijski obliki...in če je, ne verjamem, da gleda zdaj na nas z viška in nas ocenjuje, vprašanje če se nas sploh zaveda in če se, mislim da smo zanj en čisto navaden fizikalno kemijski pojav, samo še ena naravna konstanta in nič več!
Hvala, si me pa dobro nasmejal.
No, vsaj v nečem se strinjava. Naj pa ti predstavim še en zorni kot - če bi ti od otroštva dalje kazali zeleno barvo in govorili, da je to rdeča barva, bi trdil da je zelena rdeča ne glede na to, ali res je. In, na žalost, na tem principu temeji večina današnjih verstev, ki so sinonim za kreacionistično mišljenje. Sicer pa sem nad kreacionisti obupal že davno tega, ko mi je župnik skušal v glavo vbiti, da je Kristus umrl za moje grehe... Pa, nima smisla, saj sploh ni važno.
@Navadvip - "veš o čem govori" torej dvomim, da si jo prebral/-a. V prihodnje raje stvar dejansko preberi, preden jo ponujaš drugim. Eno imajo v knižnjici v Kranju, verjetno se da dobiti tudi drugod po Sloveniji.
Teoriji evolucionizma in kreacionizma sta si nasprotni le navidez. Jasno je, da če verjamemo, da se neko živo bitje počasi razvija in s časom postane iz bitja A, bitje B, je nekdo moral sprožiti postopek razvoja. Oziroma postaviti naravne zakone, ki urejajo naravni razvoj. Enako velja za razvoj človeka. Pravzaprav je Darwin celo dokazal kako genialen je Bog, nobenega čira čara, vse deluje kot namazan stroj.
Ne da se zadržuješ, ne moreš kontrirat, ker je to tak, nič se ni samo od sebe razvijal.
Rdeča barva je rdeča, obstajajo ljudje, ki ne vidijo rdeče barve in takemu lahko dopoveduješ in govoriš o rdeči barvi, pa še vedno ne bo mogo dojet kakšna je to barva. Še več, kar je, da vam bo tak človek poskušal s svojimi argumenti kontrirat o rdeči barvi????? On jo ne vidi in on vas bo učil o rdeči barvi- super ejga ni kej!
Kaj si lahko o tem človeku mislimo?
Isti klinac je z evolucionisti, dokler ni prišla moderna znanost in ugotovila veliko pomanjkljivosti te teorije, še več nagiba se k temu, da le obstaja nek "stvarnik", sila, kakorkoli si pojasnjujete to! Za vse potrebujemo validne dokaze, če je rdeča barva rdeča, je to men dokaz da obstaja rdeča barva!
Pa l.p!
Navadvip pa ti sploh veš o čem Forbidden Archeology govori in na kakšne dokaze se opira?
Lahko si pa tudi pogledate Michael Cremo: Forbidden Archeology - podobne teme.
Že v samem startu je pravljica o evoluciji pobita! Da ne govorim še o drugih dokazih, ker ni dost prostora in časa.
To je tako, kot da grem js kupovat avto in mi trgovc uporno dopoveduje, da je ta avto plod puke slučajnosti in da je tulk inteligenten, da se je sam naredo in da je nemogoče, da so ga naredl z znanjem in energijo v neki tovarni!
Ja kdor hoče naj verjame tej pravljici!
(glede povezave dinozavri - ptiči se moram tu zadržati, ker se v njo nisem ikoli poglabljal)
Povezavi (npr.) človek - ostali prvaki, kopenski sealci - kiti potrjujejo laboratorijski in terenski exsperimenti, paleontološka odkritja, sistematika, embriolgija, primerjalna antomija, mikrobiologija, fiziologija, , in genetika, ki obstaja zgolj zadnjih nekaj desetletij a na vse možne načine potrjuje predpostavke evolucijske teorije in odkritja, ki so pred njenim obstojom to teorijo pozicionirale kot temelj sodobne biologije.
Glede ugodnosti za preselitev iz morja na kopno pa, če se prav spomnim, drži, da so ta prehod najprej opravile rastline... torej je bila na kopnem pred pojavitvijo rastlinojedcev obilica neporabljene hrane in nobene konkurence. Jasno je, da vsaka evolucijska tranzicija traja zelo dolgo ampak to sploh ni pomembno... važno je, da si hitrejši, oz. manj počasen, od soseda.
Zdi pa se mi, da se zmožnost kopenskega življenja in učinkovitost v vodi izključujeta (v določeni meri), noge so namreč v kateri koli fazi razvoja manj hidrodinamične od plavuti.
lahko pa, da se glede nekaterih zgornjih navedb motim glede na to, da se zanašam zgolj na gimnazijsko stopnjo izobrazbe na tem področju
Sedaj-vprašanje je, zakaj je ta kontinuiteta precej švoh vidna. Torej kaj je razlog, da so tako imenovane vmesne vrste živele tako kratko obdobje, da se fosili niso ohranili v takem številu..
Recimo da je obstajal nek razlog, zaradi katerega je bil prehod na kopno ugoden za preživetje.
Nove niše z dokaj različnimi pogoji namreč žival ne more kar skokoma osvojiti, ampak vanjo prodira kvečjemu izredno počasi, pač glede na stopnjo prilagojenosti nanjo. Obenem ohranja prilagojenost na prejšnjo nišo oz. jo izgublja izredno počasi. Ne moreš namreč reči, da je bila žival, ki je "počasi stopala na kopno", celokupno manj prilagojena od one, ki je bila zgolj morska. Kvečjemu bolj, sicer evolucija takega prehoda ne bi preferirala.
No tu potem obstaja teorija "Punctuated equilibrium", ki pa je precej radikalna.. Ima svoje gorečima zagovornike(Gould..) in kritike (Dawkins..).
če te prav razumem ti praviš, da je neka polnorazvita vrsta v prednosti pred neko novo vmesno vrsto
Pazi:
nova vmesna vrsta je vedno odvisna od neke prej neizkoriščene niše npr.:
1. polnorazvita vrsta: morski pes
2. vmesna vrsta: skupni prednik kopenskih živali
morski pes je res bolje prilagojen življenju v morju kot neka pol morska pol kopenska žival ampak nikakor pa se ne more kosati z njim na kopnem
Nedorečene so le še določene podrobnosti, za katere laična javnost sploh ne ve, sicer je pa zadeva že zelo dobro poznana.
zato, ker je kratkoročno specializacija danemu okolju najboljša prednost (ala dinozavri pred kometom)
Dolgoročno pa je največja prednost populacijska fleksibilnost; genetska raznolikost v okviru vrste, ki omogoča preživetje dela populacije v novih okoliščinah (ala majhni sesalci, ki so najhitreje zapolnili izpraznjene niše)
Pa tudi, toplokrvnost pride zelo prav v času, ko prah in dim od kometa povzroči naravno verzijo jedrske zime, pa bolj razvita pljuča, pa boljša izhodišča za razvoj dlakavih plaščev, neodvisnost od zunanje toplote za razvoj zaroda (živi mladiči) pa seveda splošna majhnost, ki je vedno fajn zadeva v primeru, da je hrane malo...
prvič so pa dinozavri lahko dosegli visoko stopnjo razvoja iz istega razloga kot nato sesalci... prvi so bili zmožni zapolniti nove niše... bili so prvi živalski organizmi, ki so bili dobro prilagojeni na življenje na kopnem (dvoživke so še popolnoma vezane na vodo pri razmnoževanju in na vlažno okolje zaradi nerazvitih pljuč, medtem, ko imajo plazilci pljuča že boljše razvita, amniotsko jajce pa jih osvobaja od navezanosti na vodo pri razmnoževanju)
Pravzaprav bi morala biti vsaka "vmesna vrsta" bolj prilagojena od one prejšnje "polno razvite". Zakaj bi bila sicer bolj uspešna v danem okolju..
Še veliko nedorečenega je tu..
Na primer najdenih je bilo več primerkov vsake od petih zaporedno rszvijajočih se vrst ki predstavljajo razvoj kita iz kopenskega sesalca (v bangladešu), pri človeku je tega tolk, da se mi kar smiljo tisti, ki se morjo pri biologiji zadevo dobro naučit... da ne bo pomote... missing link že dolgo ni več missing... jih mamo cirka 20 dobro ohranjenih in še cel kup tistih, ki so fragmentirani.
Je pa več kot jasno zakaj je fosilov vmesnih vrst tako malo v primerjavi s fosili polno razvitih vrst; vmesne vrste so le delno prilagojene na novo nišo v okolju in kot taki nesposobni kokuriranja s polno razvitimi organizmi, ko se le ti pojavijo... razvoj res, da traja dolgo časa ampak je ta količina časa neprimerno manjša od obdobja obstoja polnorazvitih vrst...
sicer pa za tiste hardcore dvomljivce obstaja ena perfektna zadeva, ki evolucijo potrjuje preko vseh razumnih dvomov: genetika.... suck on it :P
Pa če je razvoj trajal od recimo nekega kuščarja pa do slona bi mogli najdit veliko variacij te iste vrste. Ne mora kar bit kuščar, potem ena vmesna spaka in potem kit in potem rečeš, ja to je bil pa vmesni člen. V ponedeljek kuščar, v torek ena raca, v sredo pa že slon. Ta teorija evolucije ma tolk lukenj, mislm, da več vedo o vesolju, kot pa o tem kako se je razvijalo življenje.
Že pred časom so odkrili fosil oz. kar skalni "odlitek" arheopteriksa, ptiča ki pa je bil po sodbi arheologov bolj podoben majhnim teropodom, majhnim "ptičjim" dinozavrom, kot pa današnjim ptičem. Bil je plenilec z ostrimi kremplji in zobmi, imel pa je zanimivo lastnost, namreč - perje in krila.
Prvi celovit fosil arheopteriksa so odkrili že leta 1861, do današnjega časa so jih pa odkrili še več.
Tko da tile kitajci, oz. bolj verjetno tisti ki jih je intervjujal ali pa tisti ki je za mmc interpretiral članek ste zamudili ene 200 let z omenjanjem "manjkajočega člena":-)