Teoria da Evolução está Errada ?

Partilhar

Tweetar

Porque tudo o que você aprendeu sobre a evolução está errado

E se a teoria de Darwin da selecção natural é imprecisa? E se a maneira como você vive agora afecta a expectativa de vida dos seus descendentes? O pensamento evolucionista está a passar por uma revolução...

"O que toda esta evidência mostra é que precisamos de uma compreensão muito mais subtil e matizada do darwinismo e da selecção natural", diz Shenk. "Acho que isso vai inevitavelmente acontecer entre os cientistas. A questão é quanta dessa nuance irá passar para a esfera pública... É realmente engraçado como é difícil ter esta conversa, mesmo com um monte de pessoas que compreendem a ciência. Estamos encalhados numa forma bastante limitada de ver tudo isso, e penso que parte disso vem dos termos"- tais como natureza e educar/criar -"que temos."

Este artigo no Guardian é bastante interessante. Fala sobre como afinal a visão de Lammarck, de que a experiência de vida dos seres vivos poderia passar biologicamente para os seus descendentes, pode não estar tão errada como ainda se pensa actualmente. Fala das histórinhas "just so" dos evolucionistas, que explicam tudo e não explicam nada. Sobre o raciocínio circular darwinista. Aborda a questão da transferência horizontal de genes através dos vírus e de como isso poderá revolucionar e complicar a visão darwinista da evolução e da selecção natural. Fala também do novo livro de Jerry Fodor "What Darwin Got Wrong" e de como há muitas questões que a visão darwinista tradicional não responde.

Destaco a seguir algumas porções do texto.

Epigenética e Lammarck:

As years of bestselling books by Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others have seeped into the culture, we've come to understand that the awesome power of natural selection – frequently referred to as the best idea in the history of science – lies in the sheer elegance of the way such simple principles have generated the unbelievable complexities of life. From two elementary notions – random mutation, and the filtering power of the environment – have emerged, over millennia, such marvels as eyes, the wings of birds and the human brain.

Yet epigenetics suggests this isn't the whole story. If what happens to you during your lifetime – living in a stress-inducing henhouse, say, or overeating in northern Sweden – can affect how your genes express themselves in future generations, the absolutely simple version of natural selection begins to look questionable. Rather than genes simply "offering up" a random smorgasbord of traits in each new generation, which then either prove suited or unsuited to the environment, it seems that the environment plays a role in creating those traits in future generations, if only in a short-term and reversible way. You begin to feel slightly sorry for the much-mocked pre-Darwinian zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, whose own version of evolution held, most famously, that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors were "obliged to browse on the leaves of trees and to make constant efforts to reach them". As a matter of natural history, he probably wasn't right about how giraffes' necks came to be so long. But Lamarck was scorned for a much more general apparent mistake: the idea that lifestyle might be able to influence heredity. "Today," notes David Shenk, "any high school student knows that genes are passed on unchanged from parent to child, and to the next generation and the next. Lifestyle cannot alter heredity. Except now it turns out that it can . . ."
[...]

"If a geneticist had suggested as recently as the 1990s that a 12-year-old kid could improve the intellectual nimbleness of his or her future children by studying harder now," writes Shenk, "that scientist would have been laughed right out of the hall." Not so now."

Transferência horizontal de genes entre organismos através dos vírus:

Epigenetics is the most vivid reason why the popular understanding of evolution might need revising, but it's not the only one. We've learned that huge proportions of the human genome consist of viruses, or virus-like materials, raising the notion that they got there through infection – meaning that natural selection acts not just on random mutations, but on new stuff that's introduced from elsewhere. Relatedly, there is growing evidence, at the level of microbes, of genes being transferred not just vertically, from ancestors to parents to offspring, but also horizontally, between organisms. The researchers Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfield conclude that, on average, a bacterium may have obtained 10% of its genes from other organisms in its environment.

To an outsider, this is mind-blowing: since most of the history of life on earth has been the history of micro-organisms, the evidence for horizontal transfer suggests that a mainly Darwinian account of evolution may be only the latest version, applicable to the most recent, much more complex forms of life. Perhaps, before that, most evolution was based on horizontal exchange. Which gives rise to a compelling philosophical puzzle: if a genome is what defines an organism, yet those organisms can swap genes freely, what does it even mean to draw a clear line between one organism and another? "It's natural to wonder," Goldenfield told New Scientist recently, "if the very concept of an organism in isolation is still valid at this level." In natural selection, we all know, the fittest win out over their rivals. But what if you can't establish clear boundaries between rivals in the first place?

Tendência para violar segundo a visão darwinista e as histórias "just so":

It is a decade since the biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig Palmer published The Natural History of Rape. In the book, they made an argument that – however obnoxious at first glance – seemed, to many, to follow straightforwardly from the logic of natural selection. Evolution tells us that the traits that flourish down the generations are the ones that help organisms reproduce. Evolutionary psychology argues that there's no reason to exclude psychological traits. And since rape is indeed a trait that occurs all too frequently in human society, it follows that a desire to commit rape must be adaptive. There must be a genetic basis for it – a "rape gene", in the words of some media stories following the book's publication – because, in prehistoric times, those men who possessed the tendency would reproduce more successfully than those who didn't. Therefore, the authors concluded, rape was – to use a loaded term that has been getting Darwinians in trouble since Darwin – "natural".
[...]

Far more than biologists, evolutionary psychologists bought in to the ultra-simple version of natural selection, and so they stand to lose far more from advances in our understanding of what's really been going on. They were always prone to telling "just-so stories" – spinning plausible tales about why some trait might be adaptive, instead of demonstrating that it was – and numerous recent studies have begun to chip away at what evidence there was. (That waist-to-hip ratio finding, for example, doesn't seem to hold up in the face of international and historical research.) And now, if epigenetics and other developments are coming to suggest that environment can alter heredity, the very terms of the debate – of nature versus nurture – suddenly become shaky. It's not even a matter of settling on a compromise, a "mixture" of nature and nurture. Rather, the concepts of "nature" and "nurture" seem to be growing meaningless. What does "nature" even mean if you can nurture the nature of your descendants?

Jerry Fodor e o seu livro "What Darwin Got Wrong" e o raciocínio circular do darwinismo:

I called Fodor and asked him to explain his point in language an infant school pupil could understand. "Can't be done," he shot back. "These issues really are complicated. If we're right that Darwin and Darwinists have missed the point we've been making for 150 years, that's not because it's a simple point and Darwin was stupid. It's a really complicated issue."

Fodor's objection is a distant cousin of one that rears its head every few years: doesn't "survival of the fittest" just mean "survival of those that survive", since the only criterion of fitness is that a creature does, indeed, survive and reproduce? The American rightwing noisemaker Ann Coulter makes the point in her 2006 pro-creationist tirade Godless: The Church of American Liberalism. "Through the process of natural selection, the 'fittest' survive, [but] who are the 'fittest'? The ones who survive!" she sneers. "Why, look – it happens every time! The 'survival of the fittest' would be a joke if it weren't part of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community."

This argument, perhaps uniquely among all arguments ever made by Coulter, feels persuasive, not least because it is a reasonable criticism of some pop-Darwinism. In fact, though, it's entirely possible for scientists to measure fitness using criteria other than survival, and thus to avoid circular logic. For example, you might hypothesise that speed is a helpful thing to have if you're an antelope, then hypothesise the kind of leg structure you'd want to have, as an antelope, in order to run fast; then you'd examine antelopes to see if they do indeed have something approximating this kind of leg structure, and you'd examine the fossil record, to see if other kinds of leg died out.

Perto ou longe de compreender as origens e o desenvolvimento da vida?:

The irony in all this is that Darwin himself never claimed that it was. He went to his deathbed protesting that he'd been misinterpreted: there was no reason, he said, to assume that natural selection was the only imaginable mechanism of evolution. Darwin, writing before the discovery of DNA, knew very well that his work heralded the beginning of a journey to understand the origins and development of life. All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think.

Fonte: The Guardian, 19 de Março de 2010

Continuar a Ler >>

Quando Duvidar do 'Consenso' Cientifico

Partilhar

Tweetar

Qualquer pessoa que tenha estudado a história da ciência sabe que os cientistas não estão imunes à dinâmica irracional do comportamento de rebanho

1. Quando diferentes reivindicações são agrupadas.
2. Quando os ataques ad hominem contra dissidentes predominam.
3. Quando os cientistas são pressionados a seguir a linha do partido.
4. Quando a publicação e a revisão por pares na disciplina é facciosa.
5. Quando as opiniões divergentes são excluídas da literatura peer-reviewed relevante, não por fracas evidências ou maus argumentos, mas como parte de uma estratégia para marginalizar a oposição.
6. Quando a literatura de revisão por pares é deturpada.
7. Quando o consenso é declarado às pressas ou antes mesmo de ele existir.
8. Quando o assunto da matéria parece, pela sua natureza, resistir a um consenso.
9. Quando "os cientistas dizem" ou "ciência diz que" é uma locução comum.
10. Quando ele está a ser usado para justificar políticas do dramatismo pu políticas económicas.
11. Quando o "consenso" é mantido por um exército de jornalistas que o defendem com zelo acrítico e partidário, e parecem ter a intenção de ajudar a mensagem de alguns cientistas ao invés de relatar os factos o mais objectivamente possível.
12. Quando nos continuam a dizer que há um consenso científico.

Fonte: The American

Leia também a degradação da ciência.

Continuar a Ler >>

Adaptação dos Escorpiões das Cavernas Não É Irreversível

Partilhar

Tweetar

Análise Filogenética dos Escorpiões das Cavernas Mexicanas Sugere que a Adaptação às Cavernas Não é Irreversível

"Escorpiões cegos que vivem nas profundezas das cavernas escuras estão a lançar luz sobre um pressuposto de longa data de que as adaptações especializadas são becos sem saída evolucionários irreversíveis. De acordo com uma nova análise filogenética da família Typhlochactidae, os escorpiões que vivem actualmente mais perto da superfície (debaixo de pedras) evoluiram de forma independente em mais de uma ocasião a partir de antepassados adaptados à vida ainda mais abaixo da superfície (em cavernas)."

Fonte: ScienceDaily

Artigo Cientifico Sobre os Escorpiões das Cavernas:

"A filogenia dos Typhlochactidae desafia a sabedoria convencional de que a especialização ecológica é unidireccional e irreversível, falsificando a Lei de Cope dos não-especializados e a Lei de Dollo da irreversibilidade evolutiva. O troglobitismo não é um beco sem saída evolutivo: os escorpiões endógenos evoluíram de ancestrais hipóginos em mais de uma ocasião."

Original em inglês:

Troglomorphism, trichobothriotaxy and typhlochactid phylogeny (Scorpiones, Chactoidea): more evidence that troglobitism is not an evolutionary dead-end

Lorenzo Prendini a,*, Oscar F. Francke b and Valerio Vignoli c
a Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192, USA ; b Departmento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apto Postal 70-153, Coyoacán, 04510 México ; c Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Siena, Via Aldo Moro 2-53100, Siena, Italy

*Corresponding author:
E-mail address: lorenzo@amnh.org

ABSTRACT
The scorpion family Typhlochactidae Mitchell, 1971 is endemic to eastern Mexico and exclusively troglomorphic. Six of the nine species in the family are hypogean (troglobitic), morphologically specialized for life in the cave environment, whereas three are endogean (humicolous) and comparably less specialized. The family therefore provides a model for testing the hypotheses that ecological specialists (stenotopes) evolve from generalist ancestors (eurytopes) and that specialization (in this case to the cavernicolous habitat) is an irreversible, evolutionary dead-end that ultimately leads to extinction. Due to their cryptic ecology, inaccessible habitat, and apparently low population density, Typhlochactidae are very poorly known. The monophyly of these troglomorphic scorpions has never been rigorously tested, nor has their phylogeny been investigated in a quantitative analysis. We test and confirm their monophyly with a cladistic analysis of 195 morphological characters (142 phylogenetically informative), the first for a group of scorpions in which primary homology of pedipalp trichobothria was determined strictly according to topographical identity (the "placeholder approach"). The phylogeny of Typhlochactidae challenges the conventional wisdom that ecological specialization (stenotopy) is unidirectional and irreversible, falsifying Cope's Law of the unspecialized and Dollo's Law of evolutionary irreversibility. Troglobitism is not an evolutionary dead-end: endogean scorpions evolved from hypogean ancestors on more than one occasion.

Fonte: Cladistics

Continuar a Ler >>

O Homem criou Deus ?

Partilhar

Tweetar

A religião naturalista está por todo lado e com grandes campanhas de evangelização, vejam mais uma musiquinha destes crentes darwinistas, para explicar porque as abelhas não vão para o céu:



Ainda dizem que darwinismo/naturalismo/ateísmo não são religiões...

Letra da música "Why Don’t Bees Go to Heaven?":

it seems to me the species Homo sapiens,
carries the chutzpah* gene
to think they are the purpose of the universe
when they only just arrived on the scene

what’s even worse, they bear a curse
of believing they’re the only form of life
to never die, and go on living
somewhere high up in the sky

so why don’t bees go to heaven?
and trees go to heaven?
amoeba, krill and fleas go to heaven?
it’s not surprisin’ that they’re not arisin’
‘cause man created god

this grain of sand upon an infinite beach
had been supporting life for trillions of spins
then along came humans, who started assumin’
that this was where it begins
so profoundly naïve, they began to believe
these primates were the only ones
to never die, and go on living
somewhere high up in the sky

so why don’t worms go to heaven?
and germs go to heaven?
spiders, snakes and sperms go to heaven?
it’s quite expected that they’re not resurrected
‘cause man created god

if man created Zeus, and the god of The Sun
if man created Shiva, and the god of Abraham
from all of life, why should the only one saved
be the species worst behaved?

well, that’s because
that same species, Homo sapiens
carries the chutzpah gene
to think they are the purpose of the universe
when they only just arrived on the scene

what’s even worse, they bear a curse
of believing they’re the only form of life
to never die, and go on living
somewhere high up in the sky

so why don’t whales go to heaven?
and snails go to heaven?
orang-utans and quail go to heaven?
they don’t think twice about paradise
because man created god

* chutzpah - audácia, impertinência, alguém que sem qualquer vergonha passou as marcas do comportamento aceitável

Mas que lógica tão chutzpah a dessa gente! ;)

Continuar a Ler >>

Mais um artigo Peer-Reviewed favorável ao DI - Acabando com o Weasel de Dawkins

Partilhar

Tweetar

O programa "Weasel" é uma simulação de computador escrito por Richard Dawkins para demonstrar o poder das variações ao acaso e da selecção nos sistemas evolucionários naturais e artificiais.

Aqui fica um artigo cientifico favorável ao Design Inteligente que acaba com o programa "Weasel" de Richard Dawkins:

Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” Proceedings of the the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, March 7-9, 2010, pp.290-297.

Abstract: Computer search often uses an oracle to determine the value of a proposed problem solution. Information is extracted from the oracle using repeated queries. Crafting a search algorithm to most efficiently extract this information is the job of the programmer. In many instances this is done using the programmer’s experience and knowledge of the problem being solved. For the Hamming oracle, we have the ability to assess the performance of various search algorithms using the currency of query count. Of the search procedures considered, blind search performs the worst. We show that evolutionary algorithms, although better than blind search, are a relatively inefficient method of information extraction. An algorithm methodically establishing and tracking the frequency of occurrence of alphabet characters performs even better. We also show that a search for the search for an optimal tree search, as suggested by our previous work, becomes computationally intensive.

O artigo completo pode ser lido aqui.


Veja também:
Publicações Cientificas Revistas por Pares que Apoiam o Design Inteligente

Continuar a Ler >>

Atlas Conciso das Borboletas do Mundo

Partilhar

Tweetar

O The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World (Atlas Conciso das Borboletas do Mundo) de Bernard D'Abrera é um livro cheio de fotografias espectaculares de borboletas. Bernard D'Abrera é um lepidopterista de renome mundial do British Museum (Natural History) em Londres.

Os capítulos iniciais são uma critica ao Darwinismo. Ele escreve:

“Qualquer pessoa que queira conseguir um diploma universitário de qualquer nível só tem que colocar no seu abstract (ou sinopse) a palavra ‘Evolução’ em justaposição ardilosa a palavras menos importantes tais como ‘Filogenética’, ‘Biologia Molecular’, ‘Genética’ ou ‘Biodiversidade’, e puff, vê-se subitamente abastecida de forma abundante com fundos para as suas pesquisas!”

“Algumas pessoas podem-se perguntar por que eu incluí os meus argumentos contra as diversas teorias da evolução das espécies numa obra tão popular como esta. Eu respondo que faço isso porque… aqueles que apoiam alguma ou todas essas teorias fazem-no incansavelmente e sem oposição em todo o veículo literário, visual e falado que existe — seja básico, popular ou exaltado. Eles tem o controle total de todas as publicações científicas ou livros impressos e não têm intenção nenhuma de ver a sua hegemonia ameaçada...”

“Nenhum investigador de campo que estuda os insectos, pode agora contemplar livremente as suas descobertas sobre a morfologia, biologia ou comportamento dos insectos, sem que a corrupção do darwinismo especulativo o force a colorir as suas conclusões. Esse investigador já não pode fazer observações directas e simples de factos objectivos sobre borboletas ou mariposas... Em vez disso, ele agora é levado, através de pressão da programação insidiosa pelos senhores feudais do establishment científico, a sujeitar tudo que ele observou objectivamente à tirania da especulação subjectiva e inútil sobre as borboletas e sobre as suas origens hipotéticas. Ele deve fazer isso por nenhuma outra razão que não seja a de ser capaz de obter o seu financiamento e conseguir o seu doutoramento ou alguma outra honra duvidosa de respeitabilidade mútua entre os seus pares. A parte realmente perigosa deste culto global pseudocientífico é que o nosso investigador foi, inconscientemente, levado a passar da liberdade intelectual da esfera legítima das hipóteses desinteressadas, para o beco sem saída do absolutismo totalitário do dogma que não se pode provar... Assim, os evolucionistas ficaram amarrados no cativeiro da sua própria teoria. Eles a postulam como sagradas escrituras e depois trabalham sem cessar para descobrir ‘evidências’ que se encaixem nela. Tais esforços tendenciosos só lançam o opróbrio de ‘invenção’ sobre as evidências assim recolhidas.”

O The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World está esgotado mas em alternativa está disponível no Amazon o World Butterflies, que é uma versão condensada daquele livro, do mesmo autor.

Comprar o livro?Ao comprar o World Butterflies...

Continuar a Ler >>