Religião é Veneno

O Dr. John Sanford, engenheiro genético, publicou o livro Genetic Entropy & and the Mystery of the Genome, onde, baseado no fato de haver mais de 5000 doenças humanas geneticamente relacionadas, especialmente em genes recessivos, sugere que a maioria das mutações aleatórias são deletérias, e não neutras como proposto pela teoria da evolução, e questiona sua validade, já que não explicaria nem a genética humana, e deduz que com a seleção natural não sendo suficiente para filtrar estas mutações, a médio e longo prazo isto levará a degeneração total de nossa espécie, sendo a solução a ajuda divina, ou seja, se não formos projeto de um “ser inteligente”, e sem sua ajuda, a própria evolução, ou falta dela, acabará levando a extinção..."


Sodré 17/06/2006 10:36
In the mid-1980s the breakup of his marriage led to Sanford becoming a born again Christian and a young earth creationist. More recently, he has written a book entitled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005)[3] in which he claims that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved. However, Sanford's claims have received little attention from the scientific community, and have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

In 2005 he was a speaker for the creation-evolution Kansas evolution hearings, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered ... that we were created by a special creation, by God." He also stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "Between 5[,000] and 100,000" years.

Fala crente maluco ...
Dia 19 tá chegando !!!!!

videomaker escreveu:Fala crente maluco ...
Dia 19 tá chegando !!!!!

Esstá chegando a Hora !

1.2.1 Are all mutations harmful?
While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, as suggested by the creationists, or neutral, the creationists gloss over a crucial fact: beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare. Can a beneficial mutation that occurs once in million individuals ever really contribute to evolution? Yes it can, since a rare beneficial mutation can confer a survival or reproductive advantage to the individuals that carry it, thereby leading -- over several generations -- to the spread of this mutation throughout a population. Beneficial mutations occurring in several different individuals in several different genes can simultaneously spread through a population, and can be followed by successive rounds of additional mutation and selection.

Does the fact that we know many human detrimental mutations but essentially no clear beneficial ones mean that there are have been no beneficial mutations in human history? Not at all, since there is a clear bias in what medical scientists have studied. The human mutations we know most about are detrimental because medical scientists preferentially study illnesses that cause significant morbidity and mortality. Consider the theoretical possibility that a beneficial mutation has occurred in a particular human gene; even if this mutation were identified by a comparison of the mutated gene in a child versus the unmutated version of the same gene in both parents, there is no way that this mutation could ever be recognized as beneficial. If the mutation increased intelligence, strength, longevity or specific disease resistance, this would never be apparent without long-term breeding experiments that could obviously never be done on humans. Therefore, since such beneficial mutations in humans could never be recognized in humans, our ignorance of examples cannot be taken as evidence that they don't exist. However, the experiments necessary to demonstrate a beneficial mutation can be done with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance. In this case (in contrast to the situation with the peppered moth populations described above) origin of the population from a single bacterium allows comparisons of the mutated genes with the corresponding genes from the original bacterium, verifying that the variant sequences were not present before the culture with antibiotics and therefore arose as de novo beneficial mutations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

emmmcri escreveu:e deduz que com a seleção natural não sendo suficiente para filtrar estas mutações, a médio e longo prazo isto levará a degeneração total de nossa espécie, sendo a solução a ajuda divina, ou seja, se não formos projeto de um “ser inteligente”, e sem sua ajuda, a própria evolução, ou falta dela, acabará levando a extinção..."

Falácia do wishfull thinking.

emmmcri escreveu:However, Sanford's claims have received little attention from the scientific community, and have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

É a terrível conspiração darwinista!

Kramer escreveu:1.2.1 Are all mutations harmful?
While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, as suggested by the creationists, or neutral, the creationists gloss over a crucial fact: beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare. Can a beneficial mutation that occurs once in million individuals ever really contribute to evolution? Yes it can, since a rare beneficial mutation can confer a survival or reproductive advantage to the individuals that carry it, thereby leading -- over several generations -- to the spread of this mutation throughout a population. Beneficial mutations occurring in several different individuals in several different genes can simultaneously spread through a population, and can be followed by successive rounds of additional mutation and selection.

Does the fact that we know many human detrimental mutations but essentially no clear beneficial ones mean that there are have been no beneficial mutations in human history? Not at all, since there is a clear bias in what medical scientists have studied. The human mutations we know most about are detrimental because medical scientists preferentially study illnesses that cause significant morbidity and mortality. Consider the theoretical possibility that a beneficial mutation has occurred in a particular human gene; even if this mutation were identified by a comparison of the mutated gene in a child versus the unmutated version of the same gene in both parents, there is no way that this mutation could ever be recognized as beneficial. If the mutation increased intelligence, strength, longevity or specific disease resistance, this would never be apparent without long-term breeding experiments that could obviously never be done on humans. Therefore, since such beneficial mutations in humans could never be recognized in humans, our ignorance of examples cannot be taken as evidence that they don't exist. However, the experiments necessary to demonstrate a beneficial mutation can be done with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance. In this case (in contrast to the situation with the peppered moth populations described above) origin of the population from a single bacterium allows comparisons of the mutated genes with the corresponding genes from the original bacterium, verifying that the variant sequences were not present before the culture with antibiotics and therefore arose as de novo beneficial mutations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

Sem http://www.qualquerbaboseiraevolucionista refute com suas palavras por obséquio.

Aceito sua desistência.

Eu vou cobrar direitos autorais.

Acho que isso já foi postado aqui...

auto-deletado

In the mid-1980s the breakup of his marriage led to Sanford becoming a born again Christian and a young earth creationist. More recently, he has written a book entitled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005)[3] in which he claims that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved. However, Sanford's claims have received little attention from the scientific community, and have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

....
Dr. John Sanford, engenheiro genético, publicou o livro Genetic Entropy & and the Mystery of the Genome...

Depois que ele publicar essas conclusões em uma publicação peer reviewed, em que ele não possa publicar qualquer coisa que lhe venha à cabeça livremente, a gente conversa.

Até lá ele está falando sem evidências para um bando de criacionistas babões aplaudirem, de uma coisa que ninguém mais concorda, exceto os crias que aplaudirão tudo que soe anti-evolucionista em algum sentido, indiscriminadamente.

Kramer escreveu:

emmmcri escreveu:However, Sanford's claims have received little attention from the scientific community, and have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

É a terrível conspiração darwinista!

Não, não é. Alguém pode tentar publicar algo nonsense, sem evidências, ou com evidências coletadas inadequadamente, e mesmo que se encaixasse com as teorias correntes de evolução e etc, não necessariamente será publicado. E rejeições de artigos também podem ocorrer em outras áreas não relacionadas com evolução.

Mas nesse caso, ele muito provavelmente nem chegou a tentar publicar qualquer artigo nesse sentido para começar, porque sabem que não cumpre esses requisitos metodológicos, que as evidências não apoiam a conclusão. Então só podem publicar em livros de divulgação de ignorância como "Darwin's black box", e arrancar um dinheiro de criacionistas que ainda ficam felizes com isso.

emmcri, vai se ferrar. Você não é criacionista, me disse isso pessoalmente várias vezes.
Você gosta é de encher o saco e pentelhar o pessoal com esse papo.
Chega, vai...

Aurélio, voce ja considerou a hipótese de ele ter mentido para voce?
Lembre-se de que ele é um cristão.

Perseus escreveu:Aurélio, voce ja considerou a hipótese de ele ter mentido para voce?
Lembre-se de que ele é um cristão.

É verdade...
Mas uma coisa eu te garanto...ele não entende porra nenhuma nem de evolucionismo, nem de criacionismo. Ele é mó lesado falando sobre esses assuntos ao vivo.

Mas ele é gente boa!