O Design Inteligente na Universidade Federal Fluminense

sábado, agosto 26, 2023


Sobre ADDLabs Laboratório de Documentação Ativa e Design Inteligente

O ADDLabs é o laboratório de Documentação Ativa e Design Inteligente do Instituto de Computação da Universidade Federal Fluminense e, desde 1996, desenvolve pesquisa e tecnologia de ponta em Inteligência Artificial e Interação Homem-Computador.

Para desenvolver seus projetos e suas pesquisas em Inteligência Artificial (IA) e Interação Homem Computador (IHC), o ADDlabs conta com o  investimento de empresas do porte da Petrobras e a parceria de instituições acadêmicas do Brasil e do exterior.

Na pesquisa, o ADDlabs oferece oportunidade a alunos, professores e pesquisadores no fomento à produção científica, por meio de artigos, publicações de dissertações de mestrado e teses de doutorado, e na descoberta de novas tecnologias em áreas da Inteligência Artificial (IA), como nas de Mineração de Dados, Redes Neurais, Ontologia, Agentes e Sistemas Especialistas, e Interação Homem Computador (IHC), como Usabilidade, Design de Interação e Engenharia Semiótica . 

Com investimentos da PETROBRAS, da UFF, da FINEP e do CNPq, o laboratório vem construindo, em seus 15 anos de existência, uma história de projetos bem sucedidos. A busca incessante pela inovação é o compromisso e a missão primordial do ADDlabs.




A teoria do Design Inteligente afirma que há sinais de inteligência na natureza que são empiricamente detectados. O ADDLabs Laboratório de Documentação Ativa e Design Inteligente pesquisa a inteligência artificial - produto elaborado por inteligências externas dos softwares.

Precisa explicar ou é preciso desenhar? 

Darwin, nós temos um sério problema epistemológico: não existe Árvore da Vida???

sexta-feira, agosto 25, 2023

Nontriplet feature of genetic code in Euplotes ciliates is a result of neutral evolution

Sofya A. Gaydukova, Mikhail A. Moldovan, Adriana Vallesi, and Pavel V. Baranov Authors Info & Affiliations

Edited by Eugene Koonin, NIH, Bethesda, MD; received December 21, 2022; accepted April 12, 2023

May 22, 2023

120 (22) e2221683120



In this work, we provide compelling evidence that Euplotes genetic code violates the triplet nature of the genetic decoding that was thought to be universal. Thus, Euplotes possess the most extreme example of genetic code variation described so far. The nontriplecy arises from abundant ribosomal frameshift sites with no regulatory function, where stop-codons distant from the 3′ transcript end specify +1 or +2 ribosomal frameshifting with high accuracy. We show that this violation of the triplet coding in Euplotes is brought about and further maintained by neutral evolution rather than selective processes but still is irreversible.


The triplet nature of the genetic code is considered a universal feature of known organisms. However, frequent stop codons at internal mRNA positions in Euplotes ciliates ultimately specify ribosomal frameshifting by one or two nucleotides depending on the context, thus posing a nontriplet feature of the genetic code of these organisms. Here, we sequenced transcriptomes of eight Euplotes species and assessed evolutionary patterns arising at frameshift sites. We show that frameshift sites are currently accumulating more rapidly by genetic drift than they are removed by weak selection. The time needed to reach the mutational equilibrium is several times longer than the age of Euplotes and is expected to occur after a several-fold increase in the frequency of frameshift sites. This suggests that Euplotes are at an early stage of the spread of frameshifting in expression of their genome. In addition, we find the net fitness burden of frameshift sites to be noncritical for the survival of Euplotes. Our results suggest that fundamental genome-wide changes such as a violation of the triplet character of genetic code can be introduced and maintained solely by neutral evolution.


Darwin, nós temos um problema: Evolução "de propósito" - a teleonomia nos sistemas vivos

quinta-feira, agosto 24, 2023

Evolution "On Purpose": Teleonomy in Living Systems 

Edited by Peter A. Corning, Stuart A. Kauffman, Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, Richard I. Vane-Wright, Addy Pross

The MIT Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14642.001.0001

ISBN electronic: 9780262376013

Publication date: 2023

A unique exploration of teleonomy—also known as “evolved purposiveness”—as a major influence in evolution by a broad range of specialists in biology and the philosophy of science.

The evolved purposiveness of living systems, termed “teleonomy” by chronobiologist Colin Pittendrigh, has been both a major outcome and causal factor in the history of life on Earth. Many theorists have appreciated this over the years, going back to Lamarck and even Darwin in the nineteenth century. In the mid-twentieth century, however, the complex, dynamic process of evolution was simplified into the one-way, bottom-up, single gene-centered paradigm widely known as the modern synthesis. In Evolution “On Purpose,” edited by Peter A. Corning, Stuart A. Kauffman, Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, Richard I. Vane-Wright, and Addy Pross, some twenty theorists attempt to modify this reductive approach by exploring in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.

Evolution “On Purpose” puts forward a more inclusive theoretical synthesis that goes far beyond the underlying principles and assumptions of the modern synthesis to accommodate work since the 1950s in molecular genetics, developmental biology, epigenetic inheritance, genomics, multilevel selection, niche construction, physiology, behavior, biosemiotics, chemical reaction theory, and other fields. In the view of the authors, active biological processes are responsible for the direction and the rate of evolution. Essays in this collection grapple with topics from the two-way “read-write” genome to cognition and decision-making in plants to the niche-construction activities of many organisms to the self-making evolution of humankind. As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”


A ciência se autocorrige, certo? O escândalo na Universidade Stanford diz que não!

quinta-feira, agosto 03, 2023

Science Corrects Itself, Right? A Scandal at Stanford Says It Doesn’t

What does it take to correct the scientific record? And who—and what—stands in the way? The answer to both questions is: everyone

By Ivan Oransky, Adam Marcus on August 1, 2023

A general view of the campus of Stanford University, including Hoover Tower, as seen from Stanford Stadium, Palo Alto, California. Credit: David Madison/Getty Images

By now you may have heard about the resignation of Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne. The move came last month after a report by a special committee of the university’s Board of Trustees found Tessier-Lavigne had, among other things, “failed to decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes in the scientific record” on at least four different occasions.

You may have thought, given the voluminous coverage of this case, that Tessier-Lavigne’s defenestration demonstrates such failures are highly unusual and typically lead to significant sanctions.

Neither is true. If—and given the history of such episodes, that’s a big if—journals end up retracting the three papers Tessier-Lavigne has said he has agreed to retract (two in Science and one in Cell), the number will represent less than a tenth of a percent of the retractions we expect to see this year. We at Retraction Watch, which tracks retracted papers, estimate that figure to be about 5,000—a tiny fraction of how many retractions should happen but don’t. And the careers of most researchers whose names are on the retractions that do happen haven’t suffered a scratch. The ones whose papers haven’t been retracted have even fewer worries.

From a distance, using history-erasing rose-colored glasses, it is reasonable to place the blame squarely on Tessier-Lavigne for the fact that his now disgraced work remained in the scientific record without any flags. After all, as the investigative committee noted in its report, problems with the research surfaced “in 2001, the early 2010s, 2015-16, and March 2021.”

In 2001, the committee wrote, Tessier-Lavigne told a colleague who brought issues to his attention “in writing that he would take corrective action, including both contacting the journal and attempting to issue a correction.” He did not.

Things went differently in 2015 and 2016 after the appearance of comments about the papers on PubPeer, a forum for discussions about the validity of scientific papers. “Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did an able job of initially pursuing corrective efforts with the journals Cell and Science between 2015-16, despite the uncooperativeness of another co-author during this time,” the committee wrote. But Cell determined a correction wasn’t necessary, and Science said it would publish Tessier-Lavigne’s corrections—and then didn’t.


Read more here: Scientific American

Darwin, nós temos um grande problema: os relógios moleculares estão errados e não existem fósseis pré-cambrianos...

terça-feira, agosto 01, 2023

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Fossilisation processes and our reading of animal antiquity

Ross P. Anderson 8, Christina R. Woltz 9, Nicholas J. Tosca 10, Susannah M. Porter 11, Derek E.G. Briggs 12

Published: June 27, 2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.05.014


The last common ancestor of animals is thought to have been small and soft-bodied and therefore would have required special conditions for its preservation.

Limited availability of these conditions in the Neoproterozoic could explain the discrepancy between molecular clock predictions for the timing of animal origins and the fossil record of animals.

We assess the availability of these conditions, particularly those of Burgess Shale-type, which are known to preserve animals with tissues of varied composition.

Burgess Shale-type conditions are rarely associated with Neoproterozoic fossil biotas, but in the few assemblages with these conditions, dated to 789 million years ago or older, no animals have been identified, suggesting they had not evolved by this time.

This provides a soft maximum age constraint on crown group animals of 789 million years ago.


Estimates for animal antiquity exhibit a significant disconnect between those from molecular clocks, which indicate crown animals evolved ∼800 million years ago (Ma), and those from the fossil record, which extends only ∼574 Ma. Taphonomy is often held culpable: early animals were too small/soft/fragile to fossilise, or the circumstances that preserve them were uncommon in the early Neoproterozoic. We assess this idea by comparing Neoproterozoic fossilisation processes with those of the Cambrian and its abundant animal fossils. Cambrian Burgess Shale-type (BST) preservation captures animals in mudstones showing a narrow range of mineralogies; yet, fossiliferous Neoproterozoic mudstones rarely share the same mineralogy. Animal fossils are absent where BST preservation occurs in deposits ≥789 Ma, suggesting a soft maximum constraint on animal antiquity.

Keywords Burgess Shale-type clays molecular clocks Neoproterozoic Era origin of animals

FREE PDF GRATIS: Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Indo além do paradigma adaptacionista para a evolução humana e por que isso importa.

Journal of Human Evolution

Volume 174, January 2023, 103296

Moving beyond the adaptationist paradigm for human evolution, and why it matters

Lauren Schroeder a b, Rebecca Rogers Ackermann b c

a Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada

b Human Evolution Research Institute, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa

c Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa

Received 25 April 2022, Accepted 12 November 2022, Available online 15 December 2022, Version of Record 15 December 2022.



The Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) was founded 50 years ago when much of the foundation for how we think about human evolution was in place or being put in place, providing the main framework for how we consider our origins today. Here, we will explore historical developments, including early JHE outputs, as they relate to our understanding of the relationship between phenotypic variation and evolutionary process, and use that as a springboard for considering our current understanding of these links as applied to human evolution. We will focus specifically on how the study of variation itself has shifted us away from taxonomic and adaptationist perspectives toward a richer understanding of the processes shaping human evolutionary history, using literature searches and specific test cases to highlight this. We argue that natural selection, gene exchange, genetic drift, and mutation should not be considered individually when considering the production of hominin diversity. In this context, we offer suggestions for future research directions and reflect on this more complex understanding of human evolution and its broader relevance to society. Finally, we end by considering authorship demographics and practices in the last 50 years within JHE and how a shift in these demographics has the potential to reshape the science of human evolution going forward.


Genetic drift Hybridization Neutral evolution Natural selection Phenotypic variation Evolutionary process

FREE PDF GRATIS: Journal of Human Evolution