III SEMINÁRIO MATERIALISMO e EVOLUCIONISMO: EVOLUÇÃO E ACASO NA HOMINIZAÇÃO
UNICAMP, 24 a 26 de outubro de 2011.
Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência (CLE)
Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas (IFCH
O "III Seminário Materialismo e evolucionismo" centrará suas reflexões na importância da categoria acaso para que se entenda a linha de evolução que conduziu à hominização. Afinal, que o homem tenha surgido "por acaso" interpela radicalmente não apenas os defensores do chamado "desígnio inteligente" [NOTA DESTE BLOGGER 1: design inteligente é a grafia acolhida pela Academia], mas em geral todas as vertentes, teológicas ou não, do humanismo metafísico. [NOTA DESTE BLOGGER 2: Não fomos convidados para oferecer a posição do Design Inteligente] No mesmo espírito dos dois eventos anteriores (2006 e 2009), o debate em torno das comunicações apresentadas pelos participantes compõe a atividade. (Veja abaixo os tópicos propostos para as comunicações).
A existência de um tema central colocado para o debate nada tem de limitativa. Discussões mais gerais em torno da noção de acaso e do complexo de suas conexões com a teoria geral da evolução permitirão analisar em perspectiva nova a lógica objetiva da transformação das espécies e reexaminar criticamente os temas clássicos da filosofia da vida, bem como as categorias em que se apoia, notadamente as de necessidade, causalidade, teleologia [NOTA DESTE BLOGGER 3: Quem melhor poderia apresentar este tópico? Os darwinistas ou os teóricos e proponentes do Design Inteligente?] e progresso.
No mesmo espírito, consagraremos o terceiro e último dia à discussão ampla e aberta das categorias filosóficas com as quais pensamos a vida, notadamente as de necessidade, causalidade, teleologia e progresso. Em função do número de participantes, o formato dessa seção de síntese poderá ser ou bem de mesa redonda ou de intervenção livre, com um mediador.
Contatos desenvolvidos no Simpósio "Filosofía, Evolución y Ciencias Cognitivas", em especial nas mesas plenárias: Filosofía de las Ciencias Sociales e Filosofía de las Ciencias de la Vida, no âmbito do XVI Congreso da Sociedad Interamericana de Filosofía (Mazatlán, México, 28 de novembro a 3 de dezembro de 2010), permitiram assegurar a participação, neste III Seminário, de respeitados pesquisadores mexicanos.
[NOTA DESTE BLOGGER 4: Os respeitados pesquisadores e teóricos americanos do Design Inteligente como William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson e Jonathan Wells, e brasileiros como o Prof. Dr. Marcos Eberlin Nogueira, pasme, professor da Unicamp e membro da Academia Brasileira de Ciências e do NBDI - Núcleo Brasileiro de Design Inteligente, não foram convidados para este Seminário internacional.]
PROGRAMAÇÃO
1º DIA - SEGUNDA-FEIRA, 24 DE OUTUBRO DE 2011 NO CLE:
TEMA: ACASO E NECESSIDADE [DESIGN INTELIGENTE não???]
9:30 - CARLOS ALBERTO DÓRIA (Departamento de Ciências Sociais/ IFHC/UNICAMP): O acaso no ninho da andorinha: lições de um inédito de Charles Darwin.
10:30-MAURO BARBOSA DE ALMEIDA (Departamento de Antropologia /IFHC/ UNICAMP): O acaso na evolução: paralelismos entre Boltzmann e Darwin.
11:30- SANDRA CAPONI (Professora Associada do Departamento de Saúde Pública da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina): O homem médio de Quételet: um princípio ordenador do acaso.
TEMA: NECESSIDADE E CONTINGÊNCIA NA EVOLUÇÃO
14:30- JERZY A. BRZOZOWSKI (Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul/ Campus Erechim, RS): Duas dimensões da possibilidade: entendendo o debate entre Gould e Conway Morris sobre a contingência na evolução.
15:30- PAULO DALGALARRONDO (Medicina da UNICAMP): Acaso e finalismo em teorias da evolução na Antropologia.
2º DIA - TERÇA-FEIRA, 25 DE OUTUBRO DE 2011 NO CLE (OU IFCH)
TEMA: INTELIGÊNCIA, ÉTICA E SOCIABILIDADE ANIMAL
9:30- JORGE MARTINEZ CONTRERAS (Departamento de Filosofía; Centro Darwin de Pensamiento Evolucionista, UAM-Iztapalapa; Lerma, Mexico): Las sociedades de antropoides. La sociabilidad y su evolución.
10:30- CHARBEL EL-HANI (Professor Associado do Instituto de Biologia, UFBA, Coordenador do Laboratório de Ensino, História e Filosofia da Biologia (LEHFIBio)): A evolução biológica da sociabilidade.
11:30- SILVIO SENO CHIBENI (Departamento de Filosofia do
IFHC/UNICAMP): Hume e a razão dos animais.
14:30- ANDRÉ LUIS DE LIMA CARVALHO (Laboratório de Avaliação em Ensino e Filosofia das Biociências - Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (IOC) - FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ): Simpatia para além dos confins do homem": as origens animais da inteligência e da sensibilidade e suas implicações éticas nas relações entre humanos e não-humanos.
15:30- Apresentação pelo autor do livro de Gustavo Caponi LA SEGUNDA AGENDA DARWINIANA. CONTRIBUCIÓN PRELIMINAR A LA HISTORIA DEL PROGRAMA ADAPTACIONISTA.
16:30 - Mesa Redonda com os palestrantes do dia
3º DIA - QUARTA-FEIRA, 26 DE OUTUBRO DE 2011 NO CLE (OU IFCH)
TEMA: HOMINIZAÇÃO E HUMANIZAÇÃO
9:30- GUSTAVO CAPONI (Departamento de Filosofia da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina): Tipologia e filogenia do humano.
10:30- AURA PONCE DE LEON (Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos y Sociales
Vicente Lombardo Toledano - SEP, Mexico): Evolución humana y modificación de ambientes.
11:30- JOÃO QUARTIM DE MORAES (Departamento de Filosofia do IFHC/ UNICAMP): A violência na hominização. Sobre a caça e as guerras primordiais.
OS TÓPICOS PROPOSTOS PARA AS COMUNICAÇÕES SÃO:
A evolução biológica da sociabilidade
Acaso, necessidade e progresso [???] na hominização.
Técnica, ética e sociabilidade na hominização.
Humanidade e animalidade
Obs. Haverá emissão de certificados para aqueles que tiverem 75% de presença.
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Neste seminário será considerada a pobreza de evidências encontradas no registro fóssil sobre a evolução humana? Duvido!!!
Este blogger poderia relacionar uma montanha de evidências negativas sobre o status da teoria geral da evolução humana no contexto de justificação teórica, mas cita aqui apenas alguns artigos importantes:
"When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor".
Richard Lewontin – Harvard Zoologist
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
"Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers."
Evolutionist Ernst Mayr
“Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
Anthropologist Ian Tattersall – curator at the American Museum of Natural History
“these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes” – Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296
“The australopithecines (Lucy) known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage.”
Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis;
Israeli Researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans”; Apr 16, 2007
The Mandibular ramus morphology (lower jaw bone) on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.,,,its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.
“The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian (ape-like) as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”
Lord Solly Zuckerman – Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist
Lucy – The Powersaw Incident – (a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence to ‘make the evidence’ fit their preconceived conclusion)
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”.
Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/earlyman.htm
The changing face of genus Homo – Wood; Collard
Excerpt: the current criteria for identifying species of Homo are difficult, if not impossible, to operate using paleoanthropological evidence. We discuss alternative, verifiable, criteria, and show that when these new criteria are applied to Homo, two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, fail to meet them.
Human evolution?
Excerpt: Some scientists have proposed moving this species (habilis) out of Homo and into Australopithecus (ape) due to the morphology of its skeleton being more adapted to living on trees rather than to moving on two legs like H. sapiens.
Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo? – Ann Gibbons – June 2011
Abstract: In the past decade, Homo habilis’s status as the first member of our genus has been undermined. Newer analytical methods suggested that H. habilis matured and moved less like a human and more like an australopithecine, such as the famous partial skeleton of Lucy. Now, a report in press in the Journal of Human Evolution finds that H. habilis’s dietary range was also more like Lucy’s than that of H. erectus, which many consider the first fully human species to walk the earth. That suggests the handyman had yet to make the key adaptations associated with our genus, such as the ability to exploit a variety of foods in many environments, the authors say.
New findings raise questions about who evolved from whom
Excerpt: The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years,,, The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.
The Truth About Human Origins
Excerpt: “It is practically impossible to determine which “family tree” (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard’s wife) has proposed still another...”
http://books.google.com/books?.....8;lpg=PT28A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that
“The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more
Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds
Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.
http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk/people/A.Sharkey/2008-darwin.pdf
Origin of the Mind
Marc Hauser – Scientific American – April 2009
Excerpt: “Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind”,,,
Earliest humans not so different from us, research suggests – February 2011
Excerpt: Shea argues that comparing the behavior of our most ancient ancestors to Upper Paleolithic Europeans holistically and ranking them in terms of their “behavioral modernity” is a waste of time. There are no such things as modern humans, Shea argues, just Homo sapiens populations with a wide range of behavioral variability.
http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....umans.html
Chimps are not like humans – May 2004
Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said.
Chimp chromosome creates puzzles – 2004
Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in ‘Nature’ that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed “significant structural changes”. In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, “we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated.” The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity.
Study Reports a Whopping “23% of Our Genome” Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny – Casey Luskin – June 2011
Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
NOTA CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Será que os respeitados pesquisadores participantes brasileiros e estrangeiros irão apresentar neste seminário como o ACASO, qua mecanismo evolucionário, pode ser empiricamente detectado na natureza e realizar toda a complexidade e diversidade da história evolucionária, ou o que será apresentado e discutido na Unicamp será somente 'just-so stories' [estórias da carochinha] evolucionárias???
