A guerra contra o ser humano: a teoria de Darwin por detrás dessa bestialidade ideológica

Uma simples questão de reprodutibilidade no contexto de justificação teórica: os darwinistas pira, mano!

Por que será que muitos cientistas darwinistas membros da Nomenklatura científica ficam irritados quando o contexto de justificação teórica - aspecto importante na constatação da robustez heurística de uma teoria - é invocado quanto às especulações transformistas de Darwin? Por que a Galeria de meninos e meninas de Darwin nem sabe o que isso em termos epistemológicos, mas vomita sua retórica odiosa e cheia de ataques ad hominem aos críticos da atual teoria da evolução?

Source/Fonte: EchoTalk

Talvez eles fiquem irritados e demonizem os críticos de Darwin porque sabem que a maioria das pesquisas e trabalhos na área biológica evolutiva seriam reprovados magna cum laude no contexto de justificação teórica: reprodutibilidade. Abaixo um excerto do editorial da Bio Techniques lamentando-se que a falta de reprodutibilidade das pesquisas em algumas ciências produz uma falta de confiança nessas áreas. 75%  irreprodutibilidade na área biológica:

"The troubling trend of irreproducibility, which has been brewing for some time now, came to a head for many with the publication of a commentary in the journal Nature by Begley and Ellis finding that the results of 47 out of 53 studies could not be replicated. These preclinical studies formed the basis for other research studies and in some instances were the starting points for costly drug studies. Begley and Ellis are not alone in their findings- other reports have surfaced in recent months highlighting the problem of irreproducible studies. Recently, a group called the Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) presented a report making a case for biological standards. In interviews with 60 key figures in the life science community, nearly 75% of those interviewed described having to deal with irreproducible data and/or results. ... It is interesting to note that at this moment of greater irreproducibility in life science, journals continue to minimize the space given to Materials and Methods sections in articles."

...

FULL TEXT FREE/TEXTO COMPLETO GRATIS

+++++

COMENTÁRIO CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:

Agora está explicado por que a Nomenklatura científica abomina a aplicação do contexto de justificação à teoria da evolução de Darwin através da seleção natural e de n mecanismos de A a Z (vai que um falhe no meio do caminho...). 

John Hawks: Sete coisas sobre a evolução ou mais da mesma coisa

Seven things about evolution

John Hawks

What is evolution?

In its original sense, evolution meant "unrolling", as if a papyrus scroll were being unrolled to reveal its contents. We may talk about the "evolution" of many things, from an individual's lifetime to the evolution of the universe. In the most general sense, evolution means "change".

Biologists are very specific about the kinds of processes that qualify as "evolution" in the biological sense. Biological evolution is genetic change in a population over time. Populations and individuals change in many ways, but only some changes are evolution.

Here's a list of seven things about evolution. It's not comprehensive but it hits on several important issues that help to understand how evolutionary biologists think about the process of evolutionary change.

Evolution is change in a population. Individuals change during their lifetimes, even day to day. Those changes are not biological evolution, although they may be products of evolution in past populations. Likewise, a forest may change over time, as some kinds of trees proliferate and others disappear. Those changes in community structure are not themselves biological evolution, although they may influence the evolution of the populations of trees composing the forest.

Evolution is genetic change. Many kinds of phenotypic changes don't involve evolution. For example, many human populations have markedly increased in lifespan during the last 100 years, mostly as a result of improvements in nutrition and reductions in disease. Those changes are important and highly visible, but they are not biological evolution. Physical characteristics and behaviors can only evolve if they have some genetic contribution to their variation in the population -- that is, if they are heritable.

Many kinds of genetic changes are important to evolution. Mutations happen when a DNA sequence is not replicated perfectly. A sequence may undergo a mutation to a single nucleotide, small sequences of nucleotides can be inserted or deleted, large parts of chromosomes can be duplicated or transposed into other chromosomes. Some plant populations have undergone duplications or triplications of their entire genomes. These patterns of genetic change can have a wide range of effects on the physical form and behavior of organisms, or may have no effects at all. But all of them follow the same mathematical principles as they change in frequency within populations.

Evolution can be non-random. Populations of organisms cannot grow in numbers indefinitely, so that individuals that successfully reproduce will have their genes increase in proportion over time. Among the genes carried by such successful individuals may be some that actually cause them to survive or reproduce, because they fit the environment better. The survival and proliferation of such genes is not a matter of chance; it is a result of their value in the environment. This process is called natural selection, and it is the reason why populations come to have forms and behaviors that are well-suited to their environments.

Evolution can be random, too. Many genetic changes are invisible and make no difference to the organisms. Many changes that do make a noticeable difference to the organisms' form or behavior nevertheless still do not change the chance of reproducing. Even individuals with the best genes still have a strong random component to their reproduction, and in sexual organisms genes assort randomly into sperm and egg cells. As a result, even when an individual has a beneficial gene that increases the chance of reproducing, that valuable gene still is very likely to disappear quickly after it first appears in the population. Genetic drift is strongest when populations are small or genes rare, but it is there all the time. Random chance has a continual role in evolutionary change.

Populations evolve all the time. No population can stay static for long. Reproduction is not uniform, and no organism replicates DNA perfectly. The genome of the simplest bacterium has thousands of nucleotides, ours has billions. Keeping these sequences constant, generation after generation, is a task no population has ever managed to do. Genetic variation is constantly introduced into populations by mutation and immigration, rare genetic variations are constantly disappearing when individuals who carry them don't pass them on, and occasionally rare genes become common -- whether by natural selection or genetic drift. If a population's physical form remains the same for a long time, we have a good reason to suspect that natural selection is working to oppose random changes.

Evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwin's day. Charles Darwin recognized several key insights about biological evolution, including the process of natural selection, the tree-like pattern of relationships among species, and the potential for significant changes when processes act through small, incremental steps across geological timescales. But we know a lot more now than Darwin knew. We understand the molecular basis of genetic changes, and many of the ways that the features of organisms can be affected by genetic and environmental change. We have learned much about the limits of evolution, the alternative patterns of change caused by environments, and the importance of randomness. We now know much about the changing pace of evolution, seeing it as a dynamic process that can happen in fits and starts.

Evolution is the most powerful idea in biology, organizing our knowledge about the history and diversity of life. We understand our own origins using the same tools that we use for organisms across the tree of life, from the simplest bacteria to the largest whales.

SOURCE/FONTE: John Hawks

O MEC vai mandar fechar o Biological Theory: artigo científico com revisão por pares denuncia a falência heurística da teoria da evolução de Darwin!!!

Biological Theory

December 2011, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 89-102

The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis

David J. Depew, Bruce H. Weber

Abstract

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

+++++

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13752-011-0007-1

+++++

+++++

NOTA DESTE BLOGGER

Em 1980, Stephen Jay Gould, um paleontólogo evolucionista honesto, em artigo junto com Niles Eldredge, afirmou que a atual teoria evolutiva - a Síntese Evolutiva Moderna - era uma teoria científica MORTA que posava de ORTODOXIA somente nos livros didáticos. 

Desde 1998 este blogger levou essas dificuldades fundamentais da teoria da evolução no contexto de justificação teórica junto às editorias de ciência na Grande Mídia Tupiniquim (GMT): Folha de São Paulo, VEJA, Galileu, SuperInteressante, e as publicações de divulgação científica como o Jornal da Ciência, da SBPC, e o surgimento de uma nova teoria científica - a teoria do Design Inteligente.

Em vez de praticarem um jornalismo objetivo, sério e cético sobre informações grandiosas dadas pelos cientistas sobre a origem e evolução das espécies, a maioria da GMT fez ouvido de mercador sobre esta a teoria alardeada como a mais científica de todas as teorias, tão certa quanto a Terra é redonda e gira em torno do Sol, tão veraz quanto a lei da gravidade. Nada mais falso. A cada dia essa teoria se mostra heuristicamente falida no contexto de justificação teórica.

Por isso os evolucionistas desonestos não querem o debate público daquilo que é debatido intramuros - a falência epistemológica da teoria da evolução de Darwin na sua versão 2.0. Darwin 3.0 - a nova teoria geral da evolução - já chamada de Síntese Evolutiva Ampliada ou Estendida, não será selecionista e deve incorporar aspectos teóricos neo-lamarckistas, está sendo elaborada e será anunciada somente em 2020.

Eis aqui mais um artigo científico recente dizendo o que este blogger vem dizendo há anos - Darwin kaput!!!

Darwin morreu! Viva Darwin!

Fui, nem sei por que rindo da cara de certos cientistas evolucionistas academicamente desonestos e da Galera de meninos e meninas de Darwin, a cada dia mais órfãos...

Pano rápido que a nova teoria geral da evolução será natimorta se não incorporar a questão da informação, pois a Biologia do século 21 é uma ciência de informação. Quem considera isso desde os anos 1990s? A teoria do Design Inteligente - Informação Complexa e Especificada (William Dembski).

Simples assim!

O MEC vai mandar fechar o Journal of Evolutionary Biology por publicar artigos com revisão por pares baseados em teses criacionistas

Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs

P. SENTER

Article first published online: 17 JUN 2010

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volume 23, Issue 8, pages 1732–1743, August 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x

Keywords: Archaeopteryx;baraminology;classic multidimensional scaling;Coelurosauria;creationism;creation science; Theropoda

Abstract

It is important to demonstrate evolutionary principles in such a way that they cannot be countered by creation science. One such way is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles. Some creation scientists use classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to quantify and visualize morphological gaps or continuity between taxa, accepting gaps as evidence of independent creation and accepting continuity as evidence of genetic relatedness. Here, I apply CMDS to a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and show that it reveals morphological continuity between Archaeopteryx, other early birds, and a wide range of nonavian coelurosaurs. Creation scientists who use CMDS must therefore accept that these animals are genetically related. Other uses of CMDS for evolutionary biologists include the identification of taxa with much missing evolutionary history and the tracing of the progressive filling of morphological gaps in the fossil record through successive years of discovery.

FREE PDF GRATIS

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x/asset/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x.pdf?v=1&t=hpyat2rx&s=ba3c33c0fe4bd95a29c87900db56284180756c85

+++++

Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria

P. SENTER

Article first published online: 4 JUL 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volume 24, Issue 10, pages 2197–2216, October 2011

Keywords: baraminology;Ceratopsia;Coelurosauria;creationism;creation science;Dinosauria;Microraptor;Ornithischia;Sauropoda;Theropoda

Abstract

Creationist literature claims that sufficient gaps in morphological continuity exist to classify dinosaurs into several distinct baramins (‘created kinds’). Here, I apply the baraminological method called taxon correlation to test for morphological continuity within and between dinosaurian taxa. The results show enough morphological continuity within Dinosauria to consider most dinosaurs genetically related, even by this creationist standard. A continuous morphological spectrum unites the basal members of Saurischia, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, and Ornithopoda with Nodosauridae and Pachycephalosauria and with the basal ornithodirans Silesaurus and Marasuchus. Morphological gaps in the known fossil record separate only seven groups from the rest of Dinosauria. Those groups are Therizinosauroidea + Oviraptorosauria + Paraves, Tazoudasaurus + Eusauropoda, Ankylosauridae, Stegosauria, Neoceratopsia, basal Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauridae. Each of these seven groups exhibits within-group morphological continuity, indicating common descent for all the group’s members, even according to this creationist standard.

FREE PDF GRATIS

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x/asset/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x.pdf?v=1&t=hpyb06er&s=28b5d24895e111390281936aa4e248c20e79e5d2

O lugar da vida e do homem na natureza: defendendo a tese antropocêntrica

The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis

Michael J. Denton1,2

1Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital, Mumbai, INDIA 2Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA

Abstract

Here I review the claim that the order of nature is uniquely suitable for life as it exists on earth (Terran life), and specifically for liv- ing beings similar to modern humans. I reassess Henderson’s claim from The Fitness of the Environment that the ensemble of core biochemicals that make up Terran life possess a unique synergistic fitness for the assembly of the complex chemical systems char- acteristic of life. I show that Henderson’s analysis is still remarkably consistent with the facts one century after it was written. It is still widely accepted even among researchers in astrobiology. I also review the evidence for believing that many of the proper- ties of the same core set of biochemicals are specifically fit for the physiology of complex terrestrial beings resembling modern humans. I show that none of the recent advances in the field of extremophile biology, alternative biochemistries, or recent allu- sions to apparent defects in the fitness of nature for Terran life significantly undermine the core argument, that nature is pecu- liarly fit for carbon-based Terran life, and especially for the physiology of complex terrestrial beings resembling modern humans.

FREE PDF GRATIS

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/download/BIO-C.2013.1/79

O MEC proibiu a leitura do Origem das Espécies de Darwin por conter teologia positiva na defesa de sua teoria da evolução

Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species.

Dilley S.

Br J Hist Sci. 2012 Mar;45(164 Pt 1):29-56.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8869354

Abstract

This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science.

+++++

EXCERPT/EXCERTO:

I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.

2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.

3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.

4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.

5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.

6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.

7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life.

8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.

9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.

10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.

+++++

NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:

O MEC ao proibir o ensino do criacionismo nas escolas públicas e privadas, por tabela, proibiu a leitura do livro A Origem das Espécies de Charles Darwin por conter argumentação teológica positiva a favor de sua teoria. Nenhum historiador de ciência darwinista avisou o MEC desse lado desconhecido e pouco debatido de Darwin???