Da qualche tempo mi sto dedicando (nel mio tempo libero) all'approfondimento di quanto There is truth in the theory of Darwin. During this research I came across an article you published on February 28, 2002, entitled: "Darwin was right. It became the shrimp fly."
your article (Massimo Piattelli Palmarini) writes: "An important discovery has just been published in Nature-ta, defeated a longstanding objection to the creationist theory of biological evolution. According to the creationists, in fact, the genetic lottery of the blind small successive mutations would be unable to produce large changes in a biological species. A shrimp, for example, that, according to them, can only become bigger or darker or more robust growth of the leg, but can not give rise to a fly, or it can then give rise, through many intermediate changes, say, a rat. Instead, a trained laboratory in California, have been reproduced in detail at two small mutations, the bearers of great effects, which occurred 400 million years ago, through which he passed abruptly from an arthropod, the Artemia (also known as prawns in brine or - who knows why - sea monkey, very popular among lovers of small aquariums as live food for fish), the vinegar fly [...] How these two small and very old spontaneous mutations in a gene "master" to be successful to produce much change has been reconstructed sequence sequence, and molecule by molecule, by geneticists Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis and William McGinnis, University of California at San Diego.
The author of this article demonstrates, however, did not know the objections to the theory of the creationists' biological evolution, or to be acting in bad faith.
antidarwiniani movements, very active in some U.S. states, even if they were promoted by Protestant fundamentalist groups in a completely refute the theory of evolution science. evolutionism denied any scientific validity : there is the slightest scientific proof (reproduced in the laboratory or observed in nature) as a kind of gradually becoming another.
Sul fatto che all'interno di una specie avvengano variazioni siamo tutti d'accordo, il problema è che, per i darwinisti, le specie derivano l'una dall'altra, anche individui ormai non più interfecondi e ormai diversissimi, secondo i darwinisti, hanno antenati comuni. Gli evoluzionisti affermano che le variazioni all'interno della specie rappresentano una prova a sostegno della loro teoria. Queste variazioni, però, non costituiscono una prova per l'evoluzione perché non sono altro che il risultato di differenti combinazioni di informazioni genetiche già esistenti a cui non aggiungono nessuna nuova caratteristica.
Le variazioni avvengono sempre entro i limiti dell'informazione genetica. Tale limite, in genetica, è called "gene pool", or "pool of genes." All features present in the gene pool of a species may occur in various ways to change. For example, in a lizard, as a result of a change, you may see the varieties that have a longer tail pigmentation or a more lively. The changes can not turn a reptile into a bird wings or feathers adding or changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase of genetic information of living beings, that is simply not feasible in the variations.
an insurmountable problem of scientific reliability to evolution comes from physics: for evolutionists, the first organic molecules (Amino acids) have appeared spontaneously. Subsequently, these molecules were created by joining together randomly, with considerably more complex molecules: proteins. In turn, the proteins would be united, by chance, in increasingly complex ways to make up the first cells. Joints by spontaneous cell would, incidentally, created the first multicellular organisms which later evolved into more complex organisms. In short, life is pop for a set of fortuitous coincidences. And in it, there is a natural tendency to become gradually more complex. Evolutionists can not explain why this would be the increasing amount of complexity, because there is no equivalence in more complex equals better suited to survive, however, say that everything that happens.
This random spontaneous increase of complexity is the opposite of what happens to the second law of thermodynamics. This famous law is also known as the law of entropy. Entropy is a measure of the degree of disorder in which there are elements that make up the system. The entropy of a system is increased by the movement toward a state more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned. The higher the disorder of a system, the higher its entropy. This law holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards was a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned. Every day we experience this principle: the car breaks down, every living thing grows old and died, stars exhaust their fuel and go out, everything regresses and complex decomposes into its primitive elements. Everything ends at its most likely, the differential energy level out, every element, which is continuously fed from outside energy or new information, degrades and is overwhelmed by the disorder. The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined by physical equations and calculations. The validity of the second law of thermodynamics is demonstrated experimentally and theoretically. I most important contemporary scientists agree that this law will have a central role in the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that he is the "most important law of all science."
For the second law of thermodynamics, everything just goes from bad to worse. For the theory of evolution, however, everything goes from good to better spontaneously and randomly.
These two assertions: Darwin's theory and the law of entropy, can not both be true, necessarily one of them must be false.
The refutation of neo-Darwinism goes in every field of science: paleontology, chemistry, comparative anatomy to genetics, biology alla matematica. Ciò che era opponibile all'evoluzionismo nel 1859, quando fu pubblicata L'Origine delle specie, continua ad essere opponibile. I problemi dei darwinisti (o come si preferisce oggi neodarwinisti) non sono stati risolti (come sperava Darwin) da nuove scoperte scientifiche ma piuttosto evidenziati. I sostenitori di tale teoria preferiscono "mantenere il suo credito col pubblico attraverso la soppressione della critica e l'eliminazione delle difficoltà" ( W. H. Thompson prefazione di un'edizione dell'Origine delle Specie).
Il peggio è che il Vostro articolista manifesta, anche, di ignorare la teoria di Darwin (la teoria dell'evoluzione per selezione naturale), eppure proclama: Darwin aveva ragione. Sembra Piattelli Palmarini that is the important declaration that Darwin is right regardless of how the facts really are.
Darwin never speaks of sudden jumps. In fact, in The Origin of Species states: "If it is established that there has been a complex organism that has been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would collapse." Darwin, then, argues that evolution from one species to another can only be done through numerous, successive, slight modifications.
All orthodox neo-Darwinians, in accordance with the teachings of the great master (Darwin) does not consider credible these sudden jumps to a very simple reason: a large effect has never random, but it reveals, if anything, the existence of a project. A similar variation (if it is confirmed by future tests) can not happen by chance. Instead, it is identified as moving from one level of organization to another. According to Darwin & Company (the orthodox neo-Darwinians) only small changes, put to the test of natural selection, are justified as random events.
In continuation of the article as to bias things do not improve, it read: "... As biologists have long suspected, a small, rare and fortunate mutation in a gene regulation, one of the ones I named above genes "masters" (but in the jargon of geneticists are called omeotici, e in questo caso particolare si tratta del ben studiato gene Hox), può d'un tratto produrre una specie nuova, assai diversa da quella di partenza. Le raffinate manipolazioni genetiche descritte nell'articolo di Nature, in tutto identiche a ciò che spontaneamente deve essere avvenuto 400 milioni di anni addietro, confermano adesso sperimentalmente che il sospetto era ben fondato. I normali meccanismi di mutazione genetica, poi seguiti dalla selezione naturale, sono, quindi, genuinamente capaci di generare delle assolute novità biologiche, cioè delle specie nuove. Si è riprodotta in laboratorio la genesi spontanea di uno di quei "mostri fortunati" (hopeful monsters) di cui già dagli anni Quaranta si parlava, tra il credulo e l'incredulo, nei lavori teorici sull'evoluzione. Questa importante conferma viene a corroborare, tra l'altro, le ipotesi "discontinuiste" propugnate da decenni soprattutto dai notissimi (ma spesso criticati) evoluzionisti Stephen Jay Gould e Richard Lewontin di Harvard. Una loro azzeccata analogia può forse aiutarci a capir meglio: l'evoluzione biologica non è una sfera liscia che rotola nel tempo con continuità, bensì un poliedro sfaccettato che, di tanto in tanto, procede scattando di colpo da una faccia a un'altra contigua, senza soste inter-medie. Il passaggio dallo scampetto della salamoia al moscerino dell'aceto è stato uno di questi scat-ti. Era già facile intuire che molti altri ne devono essere avvenuti, lungo centinaia millions of years, right up to our direct ancestors. Now we can expect that some of these are being played you in every detail in the laboratory. When, in the common plan of an embryo, again strongly compartmentalized mind, the same gene begins at once to suppress the development of some ni-sectional, and other active and enhances different sections, from swimming in the brine goes flying air.
The modular framework allows you living this and much more. No need to appeal to an architect who had designed all his drafting table. Small, rare spontaneous improvisations from large effects do not need architects. It's a bit 'as when producers of shotguns and machine guns-gliatrici, World War II ended, improvised, and began with small changes of the same machinery to produce motorcycles. (The initials BSA, well known to riders of my genera-tion, meant, in fact, Birmingham Small Arms. The Royal Enfield, a manufacturer of fine firearms, suddenly began to produce motorcycles with great elegance).
A little lucky rare mutation in a gene regulation can generate new biological absolute only if these features are already included in the project to start. In other words, these innovations are not really something new, but projects already in the DNA content of the original species. In specific case of this experiment, which should there is still no mention of the necessary verifications, the loss of legs, seven pairs, is due to a protein (UBX), which suppress the function of the limbs. The insect was then revealed by a mutation in the "suppressor-of-UBX legs", which made all this focus on the inventory of legs, except on the first three pairs. It is certain that this mutation would not be possible if the protein UBX does not already have this nell'Artemia.
Motorcycles of great elegance are not produced by the Royal Enfield certainly born by accident or sudden (?). With slight modification of the same machinery is moved from the production of rifles and machine guns to produce motorcycles because these machines, suitably modified according to a well-defined project and not surprisingly, had in itself the potential to produce motorcycles. This factory, in fact, after the war when weapons became useless, did not change in a candy factory or shirts, he was a metal industry and its products changed even if this did not happen by chance. Motorcycles are not very elegant-I were obtained through repeated random changes in the same machinery that produced weapons first, otherwise, the Royal Enfield would not have achieved any product that works even after billions of years of these random attempts. Furthermore, the product of departure: rifles and machine guns, is surely not something obtained by chance, but intelligent design. Similarly, detailed wings of the fly, allowing the insect to fly, can not be emerged by chance. As well as Artemia, which would rise to "shooting" as Drosophila, it has come into existence by chance. It is totally illogical to think that we move from a swim in the brine fly through the air by accident. This experiment (if confirmed by the necessary checks), if anything, shows that evolution can not happen if it happens at random, ie without the need to appeal to architects who had designed all his drafting table. Most likely, the Royal Enfield, while weapons factory, they had already designed the motorcycles that would built just after the Second World War, but certainly before building have designed. According to the evolutionists with a few random variations, also called errors in DNA copying (Piero Angela speaks of "lack good"), in steps or gradually, you can go, without having to make plans, to manufacture rifles to produce motorcycles. Following a small accumulation of these errors, according to the gradualist school, or catastrophic errors that would change abruptly production, according to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in this factory where there are no plans, we could build cars, helicopters, planes and who knows what else.
This increased complexity of random, that takes place smoothly or "jerky" is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. No increase in complexity can occur spontaneously. In a system complexity can increase only if someone outside the system, provides the information necessary to increase the complexity.
evolution if it occurs gradually (as the Orthodox say: Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, John Maynard Smith, Piero Angela and others) should leave and he left a huge amount of tracks: the famous missing links (which continue to remain missing). These transitional forms should be found in large quantities. Instead, it is not found even one. The theory of discontinuity, however, no need of transitional forms to assert that evolution takes place. Not enough, though, say that the transitional forms are not shooting because it passes from the shrimp fly. We need to make plausible the sudden transition from one species to another as a matter of chance, otherwise, the only logical conclusion is that life is intelligent design. And if life is intelligent design, we must necessarily appeal to an Architect (God) had already planned everything to his drafting table.
The laws of physics principles and mathematical statistics are valid whether you support that evolution occurs slowly and gradually and that a successful, however, that the evolution avviene per scatti improvvisi. In questa ultima ipotesi l'improbabilità è persino maggiore: per ogni tentativo riuscito, il mostro fortunato, devono esistere miliardi di tentativi falliti, mostri e basta. Le variazioni genetiche sono, invece, molto rare e di solito causano malattie più o meno gravi, o nella migliore delle ipotesi sono neutrali, (come sostenuto dalla teoria di Kimura) cioè non causano cambiamenti. Per di più, tutte le variazioni genetiche non si fissano nel DNA originario che ha in se la capacità di auto-ripararsi.
Il modello dell'equilibrio punteggiato di Gould, inoltre, crolla fin dall'inizio per la sua incapacità di affrontare il problema dell'origine della vita. Poiché neppure una single protein can be explained as an accidental event, the debate whether bodies, consisting of billions of proteins, evolve in steps or gradually makes no sense.
Waiting for your reply I greet cordially. It is understood that if I authorize you consider it appropriate to publish the above and assume full responsibility for the veracity of the statements.
0 comments:
Post a Comment