Proposals that do not identify phenomena at a minimum of two levels of biological organization will be returned without review.
This is the final year of the Advancing Theory in Biology competition. The Directorate for Biological Sciences will continue to encourage proposals that develop new theory to account for independent phenomena at two or more levels of biological organization. These should be submitted to the appropriate core program(s) in the Directorate for Biological Sciences for review.
...
I. INTRODUCTION
Progress in the biological sciences is supported by the development of theory, which identifies plausible models, testable predictions and general principles necessary to understand the dynamics and diversity of living systems. Examples of such theories are chaos theory, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, neutral theory, and network theory.
A recent report prepared by the National Research Council defines theory as a ‘family of models’ that provide an explanatory framework for a large body of experimental or observational evidence (National Research Council 2007; http://www.nap.edu). Theories guide hypothesis construction but are themselves not tested or falsified by a single observation or experiment. They also provide logical discipline and formal methodology, often through the use of formal mathematics. An increasing awareness of the complexity of biological interactions at all levels of organization, and of the challenges precipitated by advances in data collection and analysis (e.g., genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics) requires the development of new theory or the novel extension of existing theory to advance the biological sciences over the coming decades.
The Advancing Theory in Biology solicitation calls for the development of new theory, or the significant extension of existing theory, to provide an explanatory framework for themes or phenomena that are common at two or more levels of biological organization. This theory should address data or observations with far-reaching implications for understanding key biological processes and their fundamental consequences. The theory should cut across established disciplines in order to further our understanding of general biological principles, to understand diverse phenomena under these principles, to guide model construction and experimentation, and to identify new organizing principles. Some examples of new theoretical frameworks include, but are not limited to a common constructive framework for how biological ‘modules’ are created, maintained and integrated at all levels of biological organization (e.g., molecule, cell, organ, individual, community, ecosystem)
theory to account for the roles of cooperation, competition and antagonism as essential components of system optimization.
a common framework to link basic principles of energy, information or material flow at discrete levels of biological organization.
a framework to account for the contextual content and context-dependency of information flow or other biological phenomena.
Proposals that do not address phenomena or processes that occur at a minimum of two levels of biological organization will be returned without review.
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
A teoria do Design Inteligente afirma que todas as vezes que encontrarmos complexidade irredutível de sistemas biológicos (ex.: flagelo bacteriano) e informação complexa especificada (ex.: DNA) eles são sinais de inteligência, e que à medida que a ciência avançar, mais e mais complexidade será encontrada.
Gente, a National Science Foundation pede por uma nova teoria que explique essa complexidade, e pede que contemple dois níveis de complexidade. Tem mais, muito complexidade que a ciência é totalmente ignorante.
Gente, a National Science Foundation pede por uma nova teoria que explique essa complexidade, e pede que contemple dois níveis de complexidade. Tem mais, muito complexidade que a ciência é totalmente ignorante.
Por isso, eu já dei adeus a Darwin há muito tempo, sem medo de ser epistemicamente feliz. Razão? Darwin não fecha as contas heurísticas no contexto de justificação teórica desde 1859.
Fui, nem sei por que, pensando que esperar uma década pela nova teoria geral da evolução - a SÍNTESE EVOLUTIVA AMPLIADA, que não pode ser selecionista, cansa demais. Eu só fico pensando - como está sendo feito a ciência normal em biologia evolutiva se a Síntese Evolutiva Moderna é uma teoria científica declarada morta desde 1980???
Ué, a ciência não abomina o vácuo teórico? Sob qual paradigma estamos operando???
