|
|
![]() |
| | Herramientas | Desplegado |
| No siempre se cumple. ¿tu no tienes un acelerador de particulas a mano, verdad? Es mas, (si no recuerdo mal) la simple observacion de la rotacion de las galaxias contradice la fisica newtoniana (sin necesidad de aceleradores). Eso por no hablar de que no explica cosas como la curvatura de la luz (no te quejas de la que la evolucion no explica cosas?) por culpa de la gravedad. Ademas, dices lo de se pueden hacer experimentos como si en la teoria de la evolucion no se pudiera, cuando has estado dando el coñazo con unos experimentos surgidos de dicha teoria. Veo que de nuevo optas por evitar responder. Eso (lo que tu creas sobre mi formacion academica) tambien es irrelevante.
__________________ GUERRA DE SEXOS - EL SUBFORO DE BURBUJA.INFO QUE LAS ESPAÑOLAS NO QUIEREN QUE LEAS Última edición por spamrakuen; 25-oct-2009 a las 16:49 |
| ||||
Hombre, pues haz el favor de poner un link a un sitio serio, como por ejemplo una revista científica. BABALUBA. El sistema solo me permite agradecerte los posts cuando le da la gana. En este caso quería dejar constancia de las imágenes de tu zapatilla, de estar por casa, volando hasta golpear en la cabeza de hypo de caos. Muchas gracias. |
| Estos usuarios dan las gracias a ideograma por su mensaje: | ||
| ||||
No siempre se cumple. ¿tu no tienes un acelerador de particulas a mano, verdad? Si no recuerdo mal, ya se habian observado inexactitudes en las orbitas newtonianas de las lunas de jupiter que no se podian explicar mediante la mecanica newtoniana antes de la aparicion de Enstein
__________________ ¡Salve, Gurthang, Hierro de la Muerte, sólo tú quedas ahora!, pero ¿qué señor o lealtad conoces salvo la mano que te esgrime?, ante ninguna sangre te intimidas. ¿Tomarás a Túrin Turambar?, ¿me matarás depisa? Y en la hoja resonó una voz fría como respuesta: Si, beberé tu sangre para olvidar así la sangre de Beleg, mi amo, y la sangre de Brandir, muerto injustamente. De prisa te daré muerte. Entonces Túrin aseguró la empuñadura en el suelo, y se arrojó sobre la punta de Gurthang" |
| Estos usuarios dan las gracias a CampingGaz por su mensaje: | ||
| |||
| cada cosa para lo suyo. La física newtoniana es perfectamente válida para una inmensa cantidad de casos. Por algo se usa. Además de que es muy simple. Mecánica newtoniana - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre La mecánica newtoniana es suficientemente válida para la gran mayoría de los casos prácticos cotidianos en una gran cantidad de sistemas. Esta teoría, por ejemplo, describe con gran exactitud sistemas como cohetes, movimiento de planetas, moléculas orgánicas, trompos, trenes y trayectorias de móviles en general. Pero no os desviéis del tema |
| ||||
| No me desvio. Para ti este debate es sobre la evolucion; para mi, no. Para mi es sobre su status como teoria cientifica. De ahi el ejemplo newtoniano, que como ya sabes, en su momento fue el paradigma de la fisica. Que algo no sea tal y como dice una teoria, no convierte esa teoria en no cientificia. Las teorias no dejan de ser aproximaciones que dan los cientificios para explicar un fenomeno. Estais apropiandoos del concepto, y dandole el significado que os da la gana. Como la evolucion no explica X, o si Z no esta demostrado, o si Y... eso no implica que la teoria deje de ser cientifica. No existen teorias completas y absolutas. La fisica relativista tampoco responde a todas las preguntas. Solo que es una aproximacion mejor que la newtoniana. En el caso de la evolucion, y con las evidencias en la mano, no existen teorias alternativas que expliquen los hechos de forma mas creible. Por eso os digo que el sacar continuamente criticas a la teoria, cosas que no explica, y tal; es inutil. Sigue siendo la mejor explicacion que tenemos para los hechos. Pero nada, vosotros dale que te pego en que ni es cientifica, ni explica nada, que si patatin, que si patatan... |
| ||||||||
Hombre, pues haz el favor de poner un link a un sitio serio, como por ejemplo una revista científica. Si os vais a poner quisquillosos tengo más. Podéis replicarlos todos. Haz click aquí para ver el "Spoiler" 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation The following are several examples of observations of speciation. 5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization. 5.1.1 Plants (See also the discussion in de Wet 1971). 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. 5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926. 5.1.1.3 Tragopogon Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus. 5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage. 5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology. 5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile. 5.1.1.7 Brassica Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris. 5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas. 5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores. 5.1.2 Animals Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this ********** 5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy 5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities. 5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays) Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain. 5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes. 5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature 5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972). 5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970. 5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956). 5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection. 5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats. They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced. They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation. 5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found. In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation. Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium. 5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below. Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973). Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. 5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift. Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases. Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event. Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced. In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift. A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below. 5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments 5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found. 5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results. 5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species. |
| Estos 2 usuarios dan las gracias a Hipo, the Caos por su mensaje: | ||
| |||
| A ver, si está muy bien que pegues cosas y tal, pero por favor, compruébalas antes. ¿No ves que los darwinistas quedan como unos mentirosos? Hazlo por ellos, hombre. Comprueba los datos antes de ponerlos. Mira, uno de los ejemplos que pegas ahora es éste: (ya se sabe desde 1943 que no es una especie nueva) 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) With respect to O. gigas, today there are well over a hundred recognised species6 of Oenothera, but Oenothera gigas is not one of them. Evolution by fiat and faith La nota 7 que pongo en azul es ésta: Davis, B.M., An amphidiploid in the F1 generation from the cross Oenothera franciscana x Oenothera biennis, and its progeny, Genetics 28(4):275–285, July 1943, Por favor, comprueba antes lo que pongas. Gracias por adelantado. |
| |||
A ver, si está muy bien que pegues cosas y tal, pero por favor, compruébalas antes. Joder que me has puesto una cita de una página que se llama creation com (No digo que no sea cierto lo que dices, pero... joder... creation com) En cuanto a lo de comprobar lo que posteo juro por todos los hijos de la LOGSE que lo he intentado, pero mi inglés es autóctono de la Ría de Vigo. De todas formas hay muchos más. |
| |||
| Pues vale, pues aquí tienes: Evolución, la miseria del darwinismo: Mala metafísica Quisiera ofrecer ahora algunas razones de por qué considero al darwinismo como metafísico y como un programa de investigación. Es la opinión de Karl Popper. Rebátela si sabes. No es una teoría científica y punto. Da igual que no lo entiendas. |
| |||
Joder que me has puesto una cita de una página que se llama creation com (No digo que no sea cierto lo que dices, pero... joder... creation com) Ya, pero hace referencia a esa nota 7 que te he pegado ahí, que es de otra fuente externa. Los de creation.com serán protestantes y fundamentalistas creacionistas, pero no veo por qué tienen que engañar en eso. Muchas veces contrasto lo que dicen con otras fuentes y está bien. Yo no comparto todos sus puntos de vista, sólo el antidarwinista. Nada más ni nada menos. |
| ||||
Pues vale, pues aquí tienes: Yo? Para que? Si ya lo hace él solo... ![]() Karl Popper and Evolution: Is Evolutionary Theory Based on a Tautology? Quite a few creationists try to rely upon comments by Karl Popper in their attacks on evolutionary theory. In a sense they have a point because Popper did criticize evolutionary theory; but they ignore the fact that Popper later retracted his criticism after he learned that he was mistaken. He demonstrated what being a scientist is all about. Ya ves,... el hombre reconocio que se equivoco; ahi es nada. En tu caso no tengo tantas esperanzas. ![]() Ahora que sabes que hasta el mismisimo Popper defiende su estatus de teoria cientifica, ¿aun vas a insistir en que no es tal?
__________________ GUERRA DE SEXOS - EL SUBFORO DE BURBUJA.INFO QUE LAS ESPAÑOLAS NO QUIEREN QUE LEAS Última edición por spamrakuen; 25-oct-2009 a las 22:28 |
| Estos usuarios dan las gracias a spamrakuen por su mensaje: | ||
| |||
Yo? Para que? Si ya lo hace él solo... ¡¡¡¡Qué bueno!!!! Mira el link que me has puesto, mira el texto que tiene: Karl Popper and Evolution: Is Evolutionary Theory Based on a Tautology? . . . ¿Has visto donde empieza la cita? en las palabras "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status...." ¡¡¡¡Se han cargado las primeras palabras!!!! El texto dice así: I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection. Ja, ja , ja , ja qué bueno!!!!! Qué honrados que son haciendo citas. El hombre sigue opinando lo mismo sobre su opinión como programa de investigación!!!! Lo que había en la cita!!!! Quisiera ofrecer ahora algunas razones de por qué considero al darwinismo como metafísico y como un programa de investigación. ES buenísimo, tío!!!!! Qué falsos son!!! Aquí te pego el texto completo, para que disfrutes: Karl Popper: On the Scientific Status of Darwin's theory of Evolution CR Quote |
| Estos usuarios dan las gracias a babaluba por su mensaje: | ||
| ||||
| A ver si aprendes a leer. I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection. 1.- Solo se mete con la seleccion natural; con ese "cacho" (muy importante) de la teoria. 2.- Dice que todavia cree que funciona como un programa de investigacion. 3.- Sigue refiriendose a ella como teoria; y ha cambiado de opinion acerca de su estado logico y su testeabilidad. Ahora mira lo que dice del resto de la teoria; When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. ¿que opinas de lo subrayado en negrita-rojo? ![]() Creo que esta bastante claro que tan solo se mete (y no mucho) con el concepto de seleccion natural; respecto al resto de la teoria de la evolucion es bien claro lo que opina. Pero nada, tu sigue como siempre jugando a marear la perdiz como hacias con lo de la termodinamica; como siempre solo prestas atencion a lo que (crees que) encaja en tus esquemas, y el resto lo ignoras
__________________ GUERRA DE SEXOS - EL SUBFORO DE BURBUJA.INFO QUE LAS ESPAÑOLAS NO QUIEREN QUE LEAS Última edición por spamrakuen; 25-oct-2009 a las 23:55 |
| Estos 2 usuarios dan las gracias a spamrakuen por su mensaje: | ||
| |||
| ¿Pero y a nosotros qué nos importa lo que diga Karl Popper? Después somos los que respetamos la ortodoxia científica los inquisidores. Resulta que ahora palabra de Karl Popper va a misa. Pues oiga no, en sus religiones estarán acostumbrados a ese tipo de jerarquías y obediencias; pero en ciencia todo se basa en evidencias. Si Popper no ha podido sustentar sus afirmaciones (afirmaciones malinterpretadas por los creacionistas, como demuestra spamrauken; pero vale para cualquier ejemplo de "X dijo") con la suficiente evidencia para convencer a la mayoría de la comunidad científica, ¿cabe o no cabe la posibilidad que esté equivocado? Claro, para vosotros Popper igual es un profeta enviado por Dios y que no se puede equivocar. Y por enésima vez, diré que no entendéis el concepto de ciencia ni cuál es el concepto de especie ni ningún otro; y los usáis como queréis para llegar a las conclusiones que queréis. Pero tengo una pregunta para creacionistas, porque estoy intentando ver qué consecuencias absurdas tiene el creacionismo, que lo mismo así os convencéis. Vosotros entonces ¿pensáis que todas las especies fueron creadas al mismo tiempo? Como las especies no surgen unas de otras, todas las especies tuvieron que ser creadas a la vez. ¿Dios las creó a todas a la vez? ¿O las hizo ir apareciendo para coincidir con las expectativas de la teoría evolucionista exactamente? Si las creó a todas a la vez, ¿quiere decir que mamíferos, incluido el hombre, convivieron con los dinosaurios en su día? |
| Estos usuarios dan las gracias a Folken90 por su mensaje: | ||
![]() |
| Etiquetas |
| ! hilo a su sitio + baneo, ! no porque eres idiota perdido, a tocar los cojones a la iglesia, a ver estudiao, biba el pp manke pierda, digievolucionamos, esto es españa todos saben, hispanistán cementerio cultural, ideoplasta nos duerme a todos, idiograma máximo idiota posible, idiotagrima no ha bajado del árbol, idiotizado fue diseñado por un mono, involucion hispanistani, la fe es lo último que se pierde, pensamiento mágico, reza tus oraciones y calla, subnormal strikes back, vaya hilo de mierda, y sin embargo evolucionan, ¿sabes lo de la tierra esférica? |
| Herramientas | |
| Desplegado | |
| |
Temas Similares | ||||
| Tema | Autor | Foro | Respuestas | Último mensaje |
| ¿Quien puede explicarme algo sobre Panama? | Ender2008 | Burbuja Inmobiliaria | 21 | 26-jul-2009 18:12 |
| podrias explicarme una seria duda?? | Pocahontas | Otras burbujas | 9 | 21-may-2009 22:28 |
| Sobre la utilización del dato de la evolución del consumo... | Burney | Burbuja Inmobiliaria | 1 | 24-mar-2007 12:06 |
| Articulo interesante sobre la evolución de salarios | EstoNoSeCae | Burbuja Inmobiliaria | 8 | 29-sep-2006 07:42 |
| La evolución y la selección de las especies | Base 8 | Burbuja Inmobiliaria | 2 | 15-jul-2005 22:10 |