.....................................................
Que bom que você entrou Convidado
Últimos assuntos
» Noticiário Escatológico
Hoje à(s) 7:44 pm por Jarbas

»  Endurecimeto do Faraó
Hoje à(s) 5:38 pm por irmão

» DESAFIO AOS DO LIVRE ARBITRIO
Hoje à(s) 5:16 pm por Cartman

»  Arqueólogos encontram selo que comprova veracidade de histórias da Bíblia
Hoje à(s) 4:46 pm por Cartman

» A eleição torna-nos robôs?
Hoje à(s) 3:58 pm por Justo

» Livre arbítrio, auto idolatria
Hoje à(s) 3:53 pm por Justo

» Golpe é o cacete, agora é golpe no golpe!
Hoje à(s) 3:27 pm por David de Oliveira

» Consequências da Reeleição
Hoje à(s) 10:02 am por EVANGELISTA/RJ/MSN

» O homem na lua...
Ontem à(s) 11:38 pm por Khwey

Quem está conectado
54 usuários online :: 2 usuários cadastrados, Nenhum Invisível e 52 Visitantes :: 2 Motores de busca

Jarbas, Lit San Ares

O recorde de usuários online foi de 2364 em Seg 19 Dez 2011, 5:49 pm
Consulta Bíblica
Ex: fé - Ex: Gn 1:1-10

A comunidade científica finalmente reconhece: "DARWIN ERROU!"

Página 2 de 2 Anterior  1, 2

Ver o tópico anterior Ver o tópico seguinte Ir em baixo

Re: A comunidade científica finalmente reconhece: "DARWIN ERROU!"

Mensagem por Eduardo em Qua 06 Jan 2010, 1:20 pm

Adeus, seleção natural:

http://designinteligente.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-darwin-got-wrong.html#mais


Visite-me no Fórum Adventista:

http://adventista.forumbrasil.net/

Eduardo
‎Moderador Adventista
‎Moderador Adventista

Número de Mensagens : 8396
Idade : 40
flag : Brasil
Data de inscrição : 17/10/2008

http://adventista.forumbrasil.net/

Voltar ao Topo Ir em baixo

Re: A comunidade científica finalmente reconhece: "DARWIN ERROU!"

Mensagem por Eduardo em Sex 29 Jan 2010, 9:20 pm

Fodor e Piattelli-Palmarini dizem porque Darwin entendeu errado sobre a evolução



Did Charles Darwin get it wrong?
After all the Darwin celebrations, a controversial new book aims to undermine major parts of his scientific legacy. Peter Forbes looks at the arguments and asks scientists if the critics have a case

Friday, 29 January 2010

The Darwin anniversary celebrations last year were the most lavish ever for a British scientist. Now, with the garlands and bunting stored away, comes the party pooper, in the form of Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's book What Darwin Got Wrong (Profile, £20). Richard Dawkins's friend, the US philosopher Daniel Dennett, once noted to him that if he ever fell on hard times he could make a million dollars in a week by proposing to author a book entitled "Confessions of an Ex-Darwinian". Hence the inflammatory and tendentious title of this book.

Perhaps there was a risk in making such a fuss of the great man that what is known about evolution now and what Darwin wrote 150 years ago should become confused in the popular mind. Darwin was writing speculatively, before there was any scientific knowledge of genetics or the chemistry of life.

We are living in the golden age of biology, with discoveries pouring from the genome projects and even the prospect of personal, consumer genomes available at a modest price within five to ten years. Science honours Darwin as a pioneer, at the very beginning of modern biology, not the man who brought the holy tablets and whose writ must run for evermore.


New twists to the story of life: a bust of Charles Darwin at the Natural History Museum


So why would Jerry Fodor (philosopher) and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (cognitive scientist) be so concerned to refute aspects of Darwin's theory? Their book makes it very clear that an academic turf war lies behind it all. The stimulus was the outrage Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini felt for what they see as the misuse of Darwinism in the social sciences. Evolutionary psychology, in particular, gets their goat.

Evolutionary psychologists claim that the human mind was essentially formed by our life as hunter-gatherers in the Pleistocene ice age: we were adapted to that so aren't very well adapted to life in the shopping mall. These stories are fascinating, maybe true in some cases, but are untestable. The book includes a 15-page dossier of quotes from the culprits, the star turn being Steven Pinker.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini think that the best way to clear these pesky theorists from the campuses is to attack the idea of adaptive evolution at its root. Their title suggests that it is Darwin himself they are gunning for but, in fact, their target is an updated Darwinism enshrined around 50 years ago as the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism.

Beginning with the rediscovery of Mendel's work in 1900, genetics had posed some problems for the theory of natural selection. The Modern Synthesis was an amalgam of natural selection and Mendelian genetics.

Its leading contributors were Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Julian Huxley, and JBS Haldane. The result was somewhat bland, usually summarised as: "Evolution is considered to have occurred if the frequencies of genes change in a population". It was abstract, statistical, and left out the living creatures themselves, their flesh and bones and chemistry.

Now that the facts about the living creature and its genes are pouring from biology's horn of plenty, scientists are divided on whether the new findings shake the old Modern Synthesis. Polling some biologists and science writers and scanning the literature reveals that about half believe that the new findings can be harmonised with the old.

Richard Dawkins says: "Population genetics' ideas of evolution always treated development as a black box that would one day have to be opened. It is a very good thing that the box is now finally being opened... but the Modern Synthesis still stands." Professor Steven Rose at the Open University disagrees: "If by the Modern Synthesis you mean the reduction of the definition of evolution to changes in gene frequency in a population, I would say no."

Dawkins also stresses that natural selection "is the principal driver (indeed, probably the only) driver of adaptive evolution." Adaptive evolution, for Dawkins, is the result of very many infinitesimally small random variations, but huge changes in the genome are common. The wheat in your bread underwent a six-fold genome copy before it became the crop we know. And natural selection mostly acts to eliminate harmful mutations; it does not seem to be the principle source of new body plans.

Taking account of all this, in a recent Darwin celebratory article, Eugene Koonin, researcher at the US National Institutes of Health, calls for a New Extended Synthesis, writing: "The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently beyond repair." Lynn Margulis, James Lovelock's collaborator on the Gaia Theory and "science's unruly earth mother" according to Science magazine, expressed this even more pungently almost 20 years ago. She called Neo-Darwinism "a minor 20th-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology... Neo-Darwinism is in a complete funk."

Margulis's credibility rests on her achievement (generously recognised by Richard Dawkins) in demonstrating that the single-celled ancestor of all multi-celled life on earth was the result of one bacterial cell swallowing another (the two lived happily together ever after). One small gulp for a bacterium; a giant gobble for the future of life on earth. And about as far from a minor mutation as you can get.

But the biologist and science writer Matt Ridley sees no problem in achieving a New Extended Synthesis: "It is not that it is 'needed'; it 'is happening'. Modern evolutionary developmental biology is replete with examples of discovering both developmental changes and the ways they are being selected, for example in Darwin's finches".

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini use a two-pronged attack to try to undermine Neo-Darwinism. First, they detail some of those modern examples. Secondly, they attack the logic of Neo-Darwinism. In their philosophical assault, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini pursue several lines, one of which boils down to the old conundrum: natural selection demonstrates the survival of the fittest. What are the fittest? Those that survive. Scientists know that this is a trivial linguistic trick but Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini pursue this wrangling for 68 pages. At the nadir, Fodor facetiously proposes a research programme to enquire into how objects perfectly fit their hole in space.

....

Read more here/Leia mais aqui:
The Independent


+++++


NOTA CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:


Eu já disse adeus a Darwin em 1998, e não senti falta nenhuma no meu entendimento da origem e evolução das espécies: o Mysterium tremendum continua Mysterium tremendum. É propalado aos quatro cantos que Darwin explicou a origem e a evolução das espécies: NADA MAIS FALSO. Darwin não chegou nem perto de explicar isso. Depois dele, nem tampouco seus discípulos. Será que a nova teoria geral da evolução - a SÍNTESE EVOLUTIVA AMPLIADA vai explicar? Quem viver, verá!


Darwin morreu, gente! Viva Darwin, gente!!!


Visite-me no Fórum Adventista:

http://adventista.forumbrasil.net/

Eduardo
‎Moderador Adventista
‎Moderador Adventista

Número de Mensagens : 8396
Idade : 40
flag : Brasil
Data de inscrição : 17/10/2008

http://adventista.forumbrasil.net/

Voltar ao Topo Ir em baixo

Re: A comunidade científica finalmente reconhece: "DARWIN ERROU!"

Mensagem por Eduardo em Sab 13 Mar 2010, 2:27 pm

Darwin estava errado, mas isso não quer dizer Darwin estava errado



O humilde apêndice, considerado por muitos como um inútil artefacto evolutivo, ganhou um novo respeito há cerca de 2 anos atrás quando pesquisadores da "Duke University Medical Center" propuseram que, contrariamente ao que se pensava, ele desempenha uma função crítica.


O apêndice, dizem eles, é um lugar seguro onde as boas bactérias são mantidas até a altura em que são necessárias.

Passados que estão cerca de 2 anos, alguns dos pesquisadores estão de volta com o primeiro estudo em torno do apêndice (o primeiro de sempre em muitos anos).


Escrevendo no "Journal of Evolutionary Biology", cientistas da "Duke University" em colaboração com pesquisadores da "University of Arizona" e a "Arizona State University" concluíram que Charles Darwin estava errado. O apêndice é muito mais que um resto evolutivo. Não só o mesmo é muito mais frequente na natureza do que se pensava anteriormente, como tem existido há muito mais tempo do que se pensava.

O Dr William Parker, professor assistente de ciências cirúrgicas na Duke University afirma que:
Talvez esteja na altura de se corrigir os livros escolares. (...) Muitos textos de Biologia ainda se referem ao apêndice como um "órgão vestigial".
Corrigir livros escolares?! Isto nada mais é que uma cabala por parte dos criacionistas, proponentes do Design Inteligente e outros fanáticos religiosos com dúvidas em relação às teses de Charles Darwin!

Conclusão:

Mais um mito evolutivo destruído pela ciência. Os evolucionistas agora tentam de alguma forma redefinir a palavra "vestigial" como forma de defender o tio Darwin. Infelizmente não funciona.


Visite-me no Fórum Adventista:

http://adventista.forumbrasil.net/

Eduardo
‎Moderador Adventista
‎Moderador Adventista

Número de Mensagens : 8396
Idade : 40
flag : Brasil
Data de inscrição : 17/10/2008

http://adventista.forumbrasil.net/

Voltar ao Topo Ir em baixo

Re: A comunidade científica finalmente reconhece: "DARWIN ERROU!"

Mensagem por Conteúdo patrocinado Hoje à(s) 8:16 pm


Conteúdo patrocinado


Voltar ao Topo Ir em baixo

Página 2 de 2 Anterior  1, 2

Ver o tópico anterior Ver o tópico seguinte Voltar ao Topo

- Tópicos similares

 
Permissão deste fórum:
Você não pode responder aos tópicos neste fórum