Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Thank You Notes After Funeral

evoluzioneo creation?

I fear that one of the most important social issues for society is what I consider by far the most banal.
event of creation is based on a corollary of cults obviously originated from the Hebrew, quoted in the genesis and then collected in the Bible, the fact is that anyone with at least a little bit of salt to take what science is reported in a badly written book, full of errors, including grammatical , syntactic and above contradictions. Except
the church that stands (on qesto bases) to echo the last and only reason to tell them, against a world that does not want to use more the divorces and abuses of science as the worst possible evil, in addition to the material pervades it.
Now, I admit to militant atheist feel a certain resentment towards narrow-mindedness that level but I prefer to keep me, Christianity was not absolutely The engine of reason and philosophy of the world, only one brake which has blccato civil and moral development (to put it Oddifreddi).
For these reasons I agree with those who say anti-clericalism because it is the only defense against the secularism of the state, not an attack on a church which for me has had its day.
Some claim that they try at all costs to promote the new secular religion, atheism ... materialism, well these cute "immense narrow minds" did not understand anything, being atheist is simply based on a fundamental issue, common sense.
Since the latter is the only one that forces us to seek answers by asking questions, contrary to what the church professes itself, have an answer for each question never asked!
brings us to the technical part:
within creationist criticizing evolution as a mere theory, well, evolution is not mere theory but a fact and we are faced with two very different things ...
evolution is a fact, now the excessive use of the word theory has been more than clear, since he is a recurring theme from the creationist, in science, theory and fact are two distinct things, the facts are world data and as such do not dissolve when scientists debate theories, conceptual frameworks designed to explain them.
and this is an important qualification to do, as I said, evolution is a fact, as the evolution takes place, however, is a theory.
First is that of Sir Charles Robert Darwin expressed in The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, a highly respected text, published in 1859 but still ... I do not know what I mean.
To date, the evolutionary theory was not simply revised, but has been enriched by so many fields of study that go beyond the simple zoology or paleontology (which Darwin did not take into account not too much to him based only on contemporary forms) Today we make use of evoutiva biology, histology, embryology and comparative anatomy, ecology, and so on.
mind you that all environmental factors, geographic, behavioral, and climate are the result of selection of genes which are then transmitted to a next generation, and these then undergo a further selection, we're talking geological time, not 3 or 4 generations, then we reason in the order of 2-3 million years at a time!

not always the fossils are preserved ... that news, eh?
and instead the fossils themselves are an exception to the rule! in marine benthic more precisely, the sedimentation of fossils and their preservation is really good, not flawless, but allows us to have sedimentary rocks consist of calcareous fossils such as corals, ammonites, brachiopods ... and who and so forth, on the contrary, however, the continental environment is hostile to the preservation of bone formed by calcium carbonate! the sun's heat destroys them, the water swells and deforms, the humidity and heat favoriscoo The cleaning by chemical, geological pressures, even seemingly minor, actually huge for fragile materials such as fossil destroy them. And finally
oxygen, the worst enemy of conservation of all organic molecules, it is no coincidence that you put the food stotovuoto!
So what we get is 1%, maybe even less than we could get and sometimes we know a species from a single specimen or even a few fragments due this.

But according to the creationists we should, if evolution were a fact, be ripoperti by abnormal amounts of fossil ... They're not if it comes out of this abnormal amount of rubbish which would discredit what has been learned through research.
we will never know anything about a multitude of species just because the conditions of their death have not provided us any fossil ...
more we go back in time as this factor increases dramatically, the geology is not very forgiving to the findings, fragmented and sometimes destroying them ...

However, observing the current diversity of life forms is obvious that the situation was equally varied in the past.

The EVO-Devo (Developing evolutionary biology, evolutionary developmental biology)

first biological states that this discipline
-genes that control embryonic development have a key role in the evolution
-mutations of these genes ( as I wrote) can quickly generate phenotypic novelty of these new-
phenotypic some have the possibility of evolutionary adaptation (the others being mown down by natural selection)

the problem is that you lose sight of the evolution as a common factor causes focusing only on the external phenotype, genotype (phenotype-gene expression, genotype and genetic code of the individual) or
forces that produce changes in the genetic code of the individual, as a genetic code is redundant (genomic turnover) n composition and organization, this due to movement of DNA fragments in other areas of the filament, so having transposition, gene conversion, crossingover and finally, somehow convert the mutation, or to respond to environmental stimuli, the genome.
(it's an ongoing study that seeks to demonstrate whether and how the external environment is able to drive in some way the mutations)
From this branch of biology has emerged as a fundamental, namely that all organisms retain a level of evolution genes that determine the structures and functional properties considered evolutionarily independent, I'll explain with examples such as the segmentation of arthropods in some way is found in chordates (Hox code), or the formation of limbs and appendages as in vertebrates and arthropods.
then observe that there is a high degree of conservation of portions of the genome and, therefore, that evolutionary responses are to be found in the mechanisms that regulate the expression of genes and gene not only the composition.
What then has to reflect the similarity of entire gene families and expression of them at certain times of increased in embryonic or adult, that the vast majority of animal life uses the same basic set of genes to produce organisms
very different from one another! And sorry if it
little ... Well, having said that we look at the rest of the genome, or what until recently was called junk DNA ... In the human genome, since what is interesting, about 1, 5% DNA gene The remaining 98% of the DNA was unknown and purposes today is to define rules, which has the nature of repetitive DNA. What
press understand now is how to implement the rearrangements during evolution, perhaps through a mechanism of balance punteggiali as suggested by Stephen J. Gould?

Or maybe in a gradual manner at all, I personally think that evolution covers both cases, given the continuous change the habitat in which certain forms live.
E 'likely that this repetitive DNA is intended to spare in case you need to change a gene for a phenotype suitable for a specific environment, repetitive DNA sequences are sure to tell us how you connect the elements and intranuclear extranucleari in the cell.
Now we talk about ecology and paleoecology, first of all every body has a specific ecological niche, which has a definite way of life in the feed and reproduce, hardly two species occupy a specific ecological niche, unless the food is not so abundant as to support both populations, but we know that highly favorable conditions will also a higher growth of population, on both fronts, leading quickly into a situation of shortage of food for all ... Then there will be an interspecific competition which will tend to select the most suitable species condemning the loser at a crossroads: evolution or extinction which movement towards a new ecological niche free. The same is
relationship if the shortage of food is not able to sustain a 'one specific population, thus bringing in interspecific competition that will have a meaning for the selection of genes bodies stronger and more fit, which will be expressed according to the contribution of generations of an individual (fitness) to their descendants.
Now we analyze the ecological niches, we know that these are highly dynamic and not static, why? For a simple reason, the earth itself is a dynamic system, change the geology and geography of an area, it changes the climate and species and check or move and then if there had been developments in the case of highly specialized species, would come exclusively to extinction, whether these changes are sudden, then, is the mass esinzione!
I count no less than 5, but divide the geological ages due to a profound change in climate and faunal stratification.

The mechanism of speciation is very complex, so there are changes in class (classical Darwinism) and Class B, faster and seemingly incomprehensible, ever talk about senito bottleneck?
a small population of a species, if isolated mutants is forced to generate, until you come to a new species, this has been seen, shown and is still tangible.

The question of the panspermia panspermia is serious enough, you may guess, or assume we know from fossils that life is about to pop and a half billion years, we know thanks to the red beds, what are they? are beds of iron oxide, of course occurred with the release of oxygen by cells practitioners of photosynthesis and carbon separated from oxygen.
I want to clarify that resulted from the experiments is that DNA was created by the "primordial soup" but we have seen, riprducendo conditions as similar as possible, that what was observed was a series of amino acids, then create the basis for protein, a protein chain, then you may well have developed a cell membrane, was born only after the DNA or its primordial form, perhaps with only two nitrogen bases, or with 8, 6, 4 or directly ... You can not find fossils, unfortunately.
the fact is that all elements are already present in nature that must be combined, and the time it took. What
then this happened on the ground or on another planet and is single-celled life arrvata so until the land is another story ... which is precisely the panspermia.


If one assumes the existence of a god, religious ideology due to the perpetuation of a culture, there will never be an objective explanation, because they will always try to prove something by being "denied" by the god himself, so it was in the past and continues to be so today, having faith means to believe and enough, without question, "and so I have to believe." faith tends, with his deus ex machina to solve all our problems, either due to a lack of basic knowledge, typical of the past. In a totally different act and must act science, which must not provide certainty, but questions.
Asking a question in scientific terms, however, is to follow a series of logical reasoning and review all those beliefs relegated to a past of very thin base of knowledge to refute them, and groped to understand what surrounds us.

intelligent design, intelligent design ... yes but not very!

recently arrived from America a new attempt to discredit evolution: intelligent design. Others see the evolution an attack on human culture, and his dignity, his world of values, and above all the religions, it is for these reasons that some scientists or assumed, are starting to support theories to demonstrate "the error of Darwin." I think the problem serious enough, during last August I spent a whole night tuned to CNN, following a debate that I was really shocked, not because there is no evidence for the theory presented as fact by so-called scholars and clergymen, but the noise that has developed around it. The intelligent design (of course backed by President Bush) supports the creation by an unknown programmer is based on a reading most orthodox of the sacred texts, both on the non-logical evolution of mathematicity, unlike physics and chemistry. Evolution is not just a theory but a fact, not a convention, but something amply demonstrated, just observing nature. Histology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cell biology, embryology show us this, what we assume and how this happens. Here the good old Charles took over that half the 800 public "Origin of the Species" by adding random mutations in the gene pool by natural selection, nothing more sense ... I'll explain: the DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid is composed of four nitrogenous bases that couple 2 to 2 in ways well-defined (Watson & Crick), placed on two Emiel these sequences form a complementary nucleotide, the nucleotides form a more information, a gene (Mendel). Each organization has its own genetic code, a sort of construction project of the same organism, sometimes due to incorrect or duplicate diseases, occur in the genes for mutations, copying errors, compounded by the factor that combines sexual reproduction half of the genes' with the parent body of the mother, if not done an asexual reproduction or parthenogenesis. What happens? Sometimes the body can have serious problems because of this diversity physics due to mutation, other times, a longer body, larger or smaller or even a different view and so on, will be favorable to its existence, providing a huge advantage for its survival than the conditions that otherwise would be prohibitive for his fellow man. This will result in a greater "fitness" or reproductive potential and distribution of the mutated gene that regression will have a chance of becoming dominant and then typical of the genome of that organism. Repeat this factor for millions of years, imagine the climatic changes that have occurred throughout the history of our planet and on natural selection, think about how many attempts have not proved successful and many others, has gone "luxury" because of an evolutionary adaptation, and you have a fairly complete picture of evolution with the explanation of a large part of the life forms around us. Because a large part, because in other cases the mechanism is slightly more complex if not totally, it is called an evolution of class B or C, where environmental conditions are markedly different and push for more rapid and extreme changes, some of them still under study. Returning to the two advocates of intelligent design creationism are: Michael Behe, a biochemist of Lehigh University, argues that the irreducible complexity of cellular structures, or loss of functionality if you removed a part, even the most insignificant. All this would result in too complex to be processed by the simple evolution, but Behe's arguments are entered immediately into crisis, those who tell us that all the cell structures vital early today were not just incidental? Or even that they had all ' other function, before becoming what they are today? We have evidence on tests of these mechanisms, just think of the origin of mitochondria. The second is William A. neocreationism Dembski, mathematician and philosopher, but above all a theologian, he argues that a complex object must be the result of intelligence, if not produced by chance, then the extreme complexity can not be produced by the specific case. Dembski's theses are now been accepted with open hands by ceazionisti, but turned out to be totally out of place because the bodies do not fit any established design, but if a particular physical structure like a limb or an eye may increase the chance of having offspring and perpetuate life, then evolution will lead to these complex structures ... if we look at the co-evolution or the evolution of one or more species as a function of other makes you realize how mistaken is the view of Dembski.
This led to Behe \u200b\u200band Dembski to retract and make a clear step back, because they have not explained anything, but ... despite all that the ID is rampant in the United States and is expected to arrive here in Italy not long ago that sought to abolish the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools.
proponents of creationism are often reluctant to express their differences of opinion, magnifying those that occur among evolutionary biologists, so it is difficult to see the ID movement as a coherent, more as a simple and major controversy. What alarmed biologists is the arrival of this junk science, not the attack on their atheistic materialism, the fact is that over 80% of the population Americans believe in the creation of man by God and months ago when a number of supporters of intelligent design came to the school board of the state of Kansas there was wonder if has anything to do scientific consistency or just the simple faith that was the proponent of this movement.
As you can see this attitude for the intelligent design against evolution seems to proceed without the need for intelligent design.

And when I close with this because I have dwelt enough ...
the next, Nicola


Post a Comment