<\/p>\n
\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n
<\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ecx.images-amazon.com\/images\/I\/41eldssMP6L._SL500_AA300_.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Paglia, Camille (1947-\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 )<\/h1>\n
En Mujeres Enamoradas, la antropolog\u00eda es un subconjunto de la zoologia.\u00a0 La nueva perspectiva radical de Lawrence introduce en el g\u00e9nero de la novela social percepciones de Sade y Darwin sobre la integraci\u00f3n de la humanidad y el mundo animal.<\/p>\n
Vamps & Tramps, p 466. Valdemar intempestivas.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v394\/n6694\/images\/394626aa.eps.0.gif\")
<\/h1>\nPatterson, Colin <\/strong> (1933 \u2013 1998)<\/h1>\n Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The Listener\u00a0 October 8, 1981\u00a0 p.392<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
So what about the tree here and the numbers on the branches? As Steve said, it is produced by a program. Those numbers don’t pop out of the data in any way, so I suppose those come from massaging the data with evolutionary theory. It is a program that assumes evolution to be true and tells the computer to find a tree. So my question will be: What is the tree telling us about? Is it telling us something about nature or something about evolutionary theory?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n\u00abEvolutionism and Creationism\u00bb\u00a0 November 5, 1981\u00a0 p.10<\/p>\n
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.<\/em><\/p>\nQuestion is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, \u00abI do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n\u00abEvolutionism and Creationism\u00bb<\/a>\u00a0 November 5, 1981\u00a0 p.1<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Darwin devoted two chapters of The Origin of Species to fossils, but spent the whole of the first in saying how imperfect the geological record of life is. It seemed obvious to him that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, because each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin’s time, and today, after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\nEvolution\u00a0 (1999) p.106<\/p>\n
But there are still great gaps in the fossil record. Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\nEvolution\u00a0 (1999) p.109<\/p>\n
Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\nEvolution\u00a0 (1999) p.109<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.nobelprize.org\/nobel_prizes\/physics\/laureates\/1945\/pauli.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Pauli, Wolfgang (1900-1958)<\/h1>\n
En discusiones con bi\u00f3logos encuentro grandes dificultades cuando aplican el concepto de \u201cselecci\u00f3n natural\u201d de manera amplia, sin ser capaces de estimar la probabilidad de la ocurrencia en un tiempo emp\u00edricamente dado de justamente esos eventos que han sido importantes para la evoluci\u00f3n biol\u00f3gica. Tratando la escala de tiempo geol\u00f3gico de la evoluci\u00f3n como un infinito te\u00f3rico se encuentran con una c\u00f3moda postura para evitar el problema de la finalidad. Mientras pretenden que tal postura les mantiene en un discurso plenamente \u201ccient\u00edfico\u201d y \u201cracional\u201d lo que hacen es devenir en realidad muy irracionales, particularmente porque usan el t\u00e9rmino \u201cazar\u201d, no ya en combinaci\u00f3n con una estimaci\u00f3n de probabilidades matem\u00e1ticamente definidas, sino que lo aplican a eventos \u00fanicos y raros m\u00e1s o menos sin\u00f3nimos del antiguo t\u00e9rmino \u201cmilagro\u201d<\/p>\n
Este modelo evolutivo es un intento, en l\u00ednea con las ideas de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, de respaldar la total eliminaci\u00f3n de cualquier rastro de finalidad. Esta debe pues, de alguna forma, ser remplazada introduciendo elementos de azar.<\/p>\n
\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/a\/a4\/Charles_Sanders_Peirce_theb3558.jpg\/250px-Charles_Sanders_Peirce_theb3558.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Peirce, Charles Sanders (1839-1914)<\/h1>\n
Aunque soy un ignoramus en biolog\u00eda, a esta altura deber\u00eda reconocer la metaf\u00edsica cuando la encuentro; y es mi parecer que aquellos bi\u00f3logos cuyos puntos de vista de clasificaci\u00f3n son los m\u00e1s opuestos a los de Agassiz, est\u00e1n saturados con metaf\u00edsica en su forma m\u00e1s peligrosa, -es decir, la forma inconsciente-, en tal grado que lo que dicen al respecto es m\u00e1s bien la expresi\u00f3n de una metaf\u00edsica del siglo catorce absorbida en forma tradicional que de una observaci\u00f3n cient\u00edfica.<\/p>\n
\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n
\u00a0![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/09\/Enzo-Pennetta.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Pennetta Enzo<\/h1>\n
Anche se fallisce a spiegare i due problemi pi\u00f9 importanti (la nascita della vita dalla materia inanimata e la speciazione asincrona di organismi a contenuto informativo crescente) per cui \u00e8 stato inventato e cui da 150 anni si dedicano i suoi adepti; anche se uno dei suoi meccanismi fondamentali (la successione graduale di micro-mutazioni) risulta falsificato dai reperti paleontologici, che evidenziano invece un processo evolutivo dominato dalla difformit\u00e0 e da improvvise accelerazioni; anche se esso assegna un ruolo smisurato all\u2019altro suo meccanismo fondamentale, il caso, vero e proprio \u201cdeus ex machina\u201d con cui risolve la propria incapacit\u00e0 predittiva, esplicativa ed anche \u2013 provvidenzialmente \u2013 le contraddizioni sperimentali succitate; anche se, oltre che per il ruolo scompigliatore del caso, \u00e8 costituzionalmente infalsificabile per la tautologia insita nel postulato evolutivo della sopravvivenza del pi\u00f9 adatto, il cui significato non sembra differire da \u201csopravvivenza di quello che \u00e8 sopravvissuto\u201d: nonostante tutto questo, il darwinismo nelle sue molteplici e contrastanti versioni \u00e8 considerato \u201cscienza\u201d dalla grande maggioranza degli opinion maker e come tale \u00e8 insegnato nelle scuole. Perch\u00e9? Perch\u00e9 non abbiamo una teoria scientifica alternativa e perch\u00e9 come visione filosofica (a ci\u00f2 si riduce infine il darwinismo) esso interpreta maggioritariamente lo spirito, naturalistico e materialistico, dei nostri tempi, piuttosto della visione filosofica alternativa (il creazionismo).<\/em><\/p>\nIncluso si no logra explicar los dos temas m\u00e1s importantes (la aparici\u00f3n de la vida a partir de materia inanimada y la especiaci\u00f3n asincr\u00f3nica de los organismos con contenido creciente de informaci\u00f3n) para los que fue inventado y a los cuales hace ya 150 a\u00f1os que se dedican sus seguidores, incluso si uno de sus mecanismos fundamentales (la sucesi\u00f3n gradual de micro-mutaciones) est\u00e1 descartado por la paleontolog\u00eda, mostrando en su lugar un proceso evolutivo dominado por las diferencias y la aceleraci\u00f3n repentina, incluso si eso otorga un papel desmesurado a su otro mecanismo fundamental, el caso, verdadera y propio \u00abDeus ex machina\u00bb que resuelve su incapacidad predictiva, explicativa y tambi\u00e9n – providencialmente – las contradicciones experimentales anteriores, incluso si, adem\u00e1s de la funci\u00f3n de desorganizador, es tautolog\u00eda constitucionalmente infalsificable inherente en el postulado evolutivo de la supervivencia del m\u00e1s apto, cuyo significado no parece diferir de la \u00absupervivencia de lo que ha sobrevivido\u00bb: \u00a0a pesar de todo esto, el darwinismo en sus versiones m\u00faltiples y contradictorias se considera \u00abciencia\u00bb por la gran mayor\u00eda de los l\u00edderes de opini\u00f3n y como tal se ense\u00f1a en las escuelas. \u00bfPor qu\u00e9? \u00bfPor qu\u00e9 no tenemos una teor\u00eda cient\u00edfica alternativa y por qu\u00e9 un punto de vista filos\u00f3fico (finalmente se reduce a eso el darwinismo) interpreta mayoritariamente el esp\u00edritu, naturalista y materialista, de nuestro tiempo, en lugar de la visi\u00f3n alternativa filos\u00f3fica (creacionismo)?.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n
Pepe (autor de Evoluci\u00f3n, la miseria del darwinismo)<\/h1>\n
<\/p>\n
La supervivencia de los m\u00e1s aptos explic\u00f3 durante un siglo el origen de las especies, desde un primitivo unicelular procariota ca\u00eddo del cielo, la vida se diversific\u00f3 dando lugar a almejas, sardinas, tortugas y elefantes, siendo estos supervivientes m\u00e1s aptos por definici\u00f3n. <\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Cualquier persona sensata se preguntar\u00e1\u00a0 \u00bfPor qu\u00e9 persiste el darwinismo como teor\u00eda cient\u00edfica contrastada?\u00a0 La respuesta es sencilla: Porque cualquier alternativa es imposible de aceptar, dadas las premisas de nuestro paradigma cultural: el cientifismo. La primera de estas premisas es que todo es material y la materia es explicable por si misma.\u00a0 La afirmaci\u00f3n central del darwinismo, no es la supervivencia del mas apto, es que todo el universo y en el universo es producto del azar y la necesidad. El darwinismo exige aceptar esta premisa, arguyendo el principio de la navaja de Occam: \u201cEn igualdad de condiciones la soluci\u00f3n m\u00e1s sencilla, es probablemente la correcta\u201d.<\/p>\n
Afirmar que todo es producto del azar es sin duda una soluci\u00f3n simple y elegante, el problema para el darwinismo es que el azar tambi\u00e9n tiene sus reglas detectables, Hoyle el famoso astrof\u00edsico, habla de ello en \u201cMatem\u00e1ticas de la evoluci\u00f3n\u201d y \u201cEl universo inteligente\u201d, por supuesto que el sentido com\u00fan nos indica que grandes cambios y gran complejidad necesitan enormes cantidades de tiempo para que lleguen a producirse, por eso a los darwinistas les pone de los nervios entrar en detalles de la complejidad de la vida o del ritmo evolutivo, simplemente esas cosas no se comentan con adversarios.<\/p>\n
Sin embargo el darwinismo persiste como teor\u00eda ortodoxa, cada vez con m\u00e1s contradicciones y problemas, pero ah\u00ed sigue.<\/p>\n
Como escribi\u00f3 Von Bertalanffy:<\/p>\n
El hecho de que una teor\u00eda tan vaga, tan insuficientemente demostrable, tan ajena a los criterios que suelen aplicarse en las ciencias emp\u00edricas, se haya convertido en un dogma no es explicable, si no es con argumentos sociol\u00f3gicos.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\nComo explica T. S. Kuhn en \u201cLa estructura de las revoluciones cient\u00edficas\u201d, los paradigmas cient\u00edficos, no se abandonan porque se demuestre su falsedad, sino que en la periferia del sistema se comienzan a plantear alternativas a la ortodoxia y posteriormente el n\u00facleo principal de los cient\u00edficos siguiendo el lema universal de \u201c\u00bfdonde va Vicente? donde va la gente\u201d, da un cambio brusco, revolucionario.<\/p>\n
Muchos cient\u00edficos permanecen ortodoxos porque fuera hace fr\u00edo, y la represi\u00f3n es cada vez mayor para quien se sale del reba\u00f1o, pero la mayor\u00eda simplemente no se plantea problemas globales, o no los entiende. La barbarie del especialista que no sale de su peque\u00f1o campo.<\/p>\n
La ca\u00edda del darwinismo ir\u00e1 unida, si es que alg\u00fan d\u00eda se produce, a la del cientifismo que es uno con \u00e9l, y esto har\u00e1 m\u00e1s dif\u00edcil y brusco este cambio.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n
\u00a0![\"\"](\"http:\/\/uregina.ca\/~scl\/peters_photo.bmp\")
<\/h1>\nPeters Robert Henry<\/a> (1946-1996)<\/h1>\nDefinition of the nature of scientific constructs can play as important a role in science as the original elaboration of an idea.\u00a0 Such clarification should eliminate confusion and lead to the construct’s proper application. Although Darwinian evolution remains one of the greatest unifying concepts in biology, its utility has been questioned. Difficulties in defining \u00abfittest\u00bb in the phrase \u00absurvival of the fittest\u00bb have led some authors to conclude that the Darwinian theory is a meaningless formulation because fitness is apparently equivalent to survival (Waddington 1957; Coffin, cited in Scriven 1959). The testing of evolutionary theory against observation is, at best, extremely difficult (Slobodkin 1968; Orians 1973), and Scriven (1959) suggests that it is not to be expected. Birch and Ehrlich (1967) maintain that our theory of evolution is \u00abnot necessarily false\u00bb but \u00aboutside of empirical science.\u00bb Although each of these authors has found fault with the theory of evolution, none has indicated precisely where Darwinian theory may be applied and what may be expected from such an application. In this essay, I argue that the \u00abtheory of evolution\u00bb does not make predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies. Similar criticisms are then made of several ecological concepts. The essence of the argument is that these \u00abtheories\u00bb are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.<\/p>\n
Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Listener\u00a0 October 8, 1981\u00a0 p.392<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So what about the tree here and the numbers on the branches? As Steve said, it is produced by a program. Those numbers don’t pop out of the data in any way, so I suppose those come from massaging the data with evolutionary theory. It is a program that assumes evolution to be true and tells the computer to find a tree. So my question will be: What is the tree telling us about? Is it telling us something about nature or something about evolutionary theory?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n \u00abEvolutionism and Creationism\u00bb\u00a0 November 5, 1981\u00a0 p.10<\/p>\n One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.<\/em><\/p>\n Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, \u00abI do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n \u00abEvolutionism and Creationism\u00bb<\/a>\u00a0 November 5, 1981\u00a0 p.1<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Darwin devoted two chapters of The Origin of Species to fossils, but spent the whole of the first in saying how imperfect the geological record of life is. It seemed obvious to him that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, because each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin’s time, and today, after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Evolution\u00a0 (1999) p.106<\/p>\n But there are still great gaps in the fossil record. Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Evolution\u00a0 (1999) p.109<\/p>\n Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Evolution\u00a0 (1999) p.109<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n En discusiones con bi\u00f3logos encuentro grandes dificultades cuando aplican el concepto de \u201cselecci\u00f3n natural\u201d de manera amplia, sin ser capaces de estimar la probabilidad de la ocurrencia en un tiempo emp\u00edricamente dado de justamente esos eventos que han sido importantes para la evoluci\u00f3n biol\u00f3gica. Tratando la escala de tiempo geol\u00f3gico de la evoluci\u00f3n como un infinito te\u00f3rico se encuentran con una c\u00f3moda postura para evitar el problema de la finalidad. Mientras pretenden que tal postura les mantiene en un discurso plenamente \u201ccient\u00edfico\u201d y \u201cracional\u201d lo que hacen es devenir en realidad muy irracionales, particularmente porque usan el t\u00e9rmino \u201cazar\u201d, no ya en combinaci\u00f3n con una estimaci\u00f3n de probabilidades matem\u00e1ticamente definidas, sino que lo aplican a eventos \u00fanicos y raros m\u00e1s o menos sin\u00f3nimos del antiguo t\u00e9rmino \u201cmilagro\u201d<\/p>\n Este modelo evolutivo es un intento, en l\u00ednea con las ideas de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, de respaldar la total eliminaci\u00f3n de cualquier rastro de finalidad. Esta debe pues, de alguna forma, ser remplazada introduciendo elementos de azar.<\/p>\n \u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n Aunque soy un ignoramus en biolog\u00eda, a esta altura deber\u00eda reconocer la metaf\u00edsica cuando la encuentro; y es mi parecer que aquellos bi\u00f3logos cuyos puntos de vista de clasificaci\u00f3n son los m\u00e1s opuestos a los de Agassiz, est\u00e1n saturados con metaf\u00edsica en su forma m\u00e1s peligrosa, -es decir, la forma inconsciente-, en tal grado que lo que dicen al respecto es m\u00e1s bien la expresi\u00f3n de una metaf\u00edsica del siglo catorce absorbida en forma tradicional que de una observaci\u00f3n cient\u00edfica.<\/p>\n \u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n \u00a0 Anche se fallisce a spiegare i due problemi pi\u00f9 importanti (la nascita della vita dalla materia inanimata e la speciazione asincrona di organismi a contenuto informativo crescente) per cui \u00e8 stato inventato e cui da 150 anni si dedicano i suoi adepti; anche se uno dei suoi meccanismi fondamentali (la successione graduale di micro-mutazioni) risulta falsificato dai reperti paleontologici, che evidenziano invece un processo evolutivo dominato dalla difformit\u00e0 e da improvvise accelerazioni; anche se esso assegna un ruolo smisurato all\u2019altro suo meccanismo fondamentale, il caso, vero e proprio \u201cdeus ex machina\u201d con cui risolve la propria incapacit\u00e0 predittiva, esplicativa ed anche \u2013 provvidenzialmente \u2013 le contraddizioni sperimentali succitate; anche se, oltre che per il ruolo scompigliatore del caso, \u00e8 costituzionalmente infalsificabile per la tautologia insita nel postulato evolutivo della sopravvivenza del pi\u00f9 adatto, il cui significato non sembra differire da \u201csopravvivenza di quello che \u00e8 sopravvissuto\u201d: nonostante tutto questo, il darwinismo nelle sue molteplici e contrastanti versioni \u00e8 considerato \u201cscienza\u201d dalla grande maggioranza degli opinion maker e come tale \u00e8 insegnato nelle scuole. Perch\u00e9? Perch\u00e9 non abbiamo una teoria scientifica alternativa e perch\u00e9 come visione filosofica (a ci\u00f2 si riduce infine il darwinismo) esso interpreta maggioritariamente lo spirito, naturalistico e materialistico, dei nostri tempi, piuttosto della visione filosofica alternativa (il creazionismo).<\/em><\/p>\n Incluso si no logra explicar los dos temas m\u00e1s importantes (la aparici\u00f3n de la vida a partir de materia inanimada y la especiaci\u00f3n asincr\u00f3nica de los organismos con contenido creciente de informaci\u00f3n) para los que fue inventado y a los cuales hace ya 150 a\u00f1os que se dedican sus seguidores, incluso si uno de sus mecanismos fundamentales (la sucesi\u00f3n gradual de micro-mutaciones) est\u00e1 descartado por la paleontolog\u00eda, mostrando en su lugar un proceso evolutivo dominado por las diferencias y la aceleraci\u00f3n repentina, incluso si eso otorga un papel desmesurado a su otro mecanismo fundamental, el caso, verdadera y propio \u00abDeus ex machina\u00bb que resuelve su incapacidad predictiva, explicativa y tambi\u00e9n – providencialmente – las contradicciones experimentales anteriores, incluso si, adem\u00e1s de la funci\u00f3n de desorganizador, es tautolog\u00eda constitucionalmente infalsificable inherente en el postulado evolutivo de la supervivencia del m\u00e1s apto, cuyo significado no parece diferir de la \u00absupervivencia de lo que ha sobrevivido\u00bb: \u00a0a pesar de todo esto, el darwinismo en sus versiones m\u00faltiples y contradictorias se considera \u00abciencia\u00bb por la gran mayor\u00eda de los l\u00edderes de opini\u00f3n y como tal se ense\u00f1a en las escuelas. \u00bfPor qu\u00e9? \u00bfPor qu\u00e9 no tenemos una teor\u00eda cient\u00edfica alternativa y por qu\u00e9 un punto de vista filos\u00f3fico (finalmente se reduce a eso el darwinismo) interpreta mayoritariamente el esp\u00edritu, naturalista y materialista, de nuestro tiempo, en lugar de la visi\u00f3n alternativa filos\u00f3fica (creacionismo)?.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n <\/p>\n La supervivencia de los m\u00e1s aptos explic\u00f3 durante un siglo el origen de las especies, desde un primitivo unicelular procariota ca\u00eddo del cielo, la vida se diversific\u00f3 dando lugar a almejas, sardinas, tortugas y elefantes, siendo estos supervivientes m\u00e1s aptos por definici\u00f3n. <\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Cualquier persona sensata se preguntar\u00e1\u00a0 \u00bfPor qu\u00e9 persiste el darwinismo como teor\u00eda cient\u00edfica contrastada?\u00a0 La respuesta es sencilla: Porque cualquier alternativa es imposible de aceptar, dadas las premisas de nuestro paradigma cultural: el cientifismo. La primera de estas premisas es que todo es material y la materia es explicable por si misma.\u00a0 La afirmaci\u00f3n central del darwinismo, no es la supervivencia del mas apto, es que todo el universo y en el universo es producto del azar y la necesidad. El darwinismo exige aceptar esta premisa, arguyendo el principio de la navaja de Occam: \u201cEn igualdad de condiciones la soluci\u00f3n m\u00e1s sencilla, es probablemente la correcta\u201d.<\/p>\n Afirmar que todo es producto del azar es sin duda una soluci\u00f3n simple y elegante, el problema para el darwinismo es que el azar tambi\u00e9n tiene sus reglas detectables, Hoyle el famoso astrof\u00edsico, habla de ello en \u201cMatem\u00e1ticas de la evoluci\u00f3n\u201d y \u201cEl universo inteligente\u201d, por supuesto que el sentido com\u00fan nos indica que grandes cambios y gran complejidad necesitan enormes cantidades de tiempo para que lleguen a producirse, por eso a los darwinistas les pone de los nervios entrar en detalles de la complejidad de la vida o del ritmo evolutivo, simplemente esas cosas no se comentan con adversarios.<\/p>\n Sin embargo el darwinismo persiste como teor\u00eda ortodoxa, cada vez con m\u00e1s contradicciones y problemas, pero ah\u00ed sigue.<\/p>\n Como escribi\u00f3 Von Bertalanffy:<\/p>\n El hecho de que una teor\u00eda tan vaga, tan insuficientemente demostrable, tan ajena a los criterios que suelen aplicarse en las ciencias emp\u00edricas, se haya convertido en un dogma no es explicable, si no es con argumentos sociol\u00f3gicos.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Como explica T. S. Kuhn en \u201cLa estructura de las revoluciones cient\u00edficas\u201d, los paradigmas cient\u00edficos, no se abandonan porque se demuestre su falsedad, sino que en la periferia del sistema se comienzan a plantear alternativas a la ortodoxia y posteriormente el n\u00facleo principal de los cient\u00edficos siguiendo el lema universal de \u201c\u00bfdonde va Vicente? donde va la gente\u201d, da un cambio brusco, revolucionario.<\/p>\n Muchos cient\u00edficos permanecen ortodoxos porque fuera hace fr\u00edo, y la represi\u00f3n es cada vez mayor para quien se sale del reba\u00f1o, pero la mayor\u00eda simplemente no se plantea problemas globales, o no los entiende. La barbarie del especialista que no sale de su peque\u00f1o campo.<\/p>\n La ca\u00edda del darwinismo ir\u00e1 unida, si es que alg\u00fan d\u00eda se produce, a la del cientifismo que es uno con \u00e9l, y esto har\u00e1 m\u00e1s dif\u00edcil y brusco este cambio.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4\u00f8,\u00b8\u00b8,\u00f8\u00a4\u00ba\u00b0`\u00b0\u00ba\u00a4<\/p>\n Definition of the nature of scientific constructs can play as important a role in science as the original elaboration of an idea.\u00a0 Such clarification should eliminate confusion and lead to the construct’s proper application. Although Darwinian evolution remains one of the greatest unifying concepts in biology, its utility has been questioned. Difficulties in defining \u00abfittest\u00bb in the phrase \u00absurvival of the fittest\u00bb have led some authors to conclude that the Darwinian theory is a meaningless formulation because fitness is apparently equivalent to survival (Waddington 1957; Coffin, cited in Scriven 1959). The testing of evolutionary theory against observation is, at best, extremely difficult (Slobodkin 1968; Orians 1973), and Scriven (1959) suggests that it is not to be expected. Birch and Ehrlich (1967) maintain that our theory of evolution is \u00abnot necessarily false\u00bb but \u00aboutside of empirical science.\u00bb Although each of these authors has found fault with the theory of evolution, none has indicated precisely where Darwinian theory may be applied and what may be expected from such an application. In this essay, I argue that the \u00abtheory of evolution\u00bb does not make predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies. Similar criticisms are then made of several ecological concepts. The essence of the argument is that these \u00abtheories\u00bb are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.<\/p>\n<\/p>\nPauli, Wolfgang (1900-1958)<\/h1>\n
<\/p>\nPeirce, Charles Sanders (1839-1914)<\/h1>\n
<\/p>\nPennetta Enzo<\/h1>\n
Pepe (autor de Evoluci\u00f3n, la miseria del darwinismo)<\/h1>\n
\u00a0
<\/h1>\nPeters Robert Henry<\/a> (1946-1996)<\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.utilitarianism.com\/karl-popper.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/1\/16\/William_B._Provine%2C_HSS_2008.jpg\/220px-William_B._Provine%2C_HSS_2008.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.dnaftb.org\/images\/5\/5bio.gif\")
<\/p>\n