Here are some photos from the Origin into schools outreach at U.C. Berkeley. Sponsored by Living Waters, this outreach provided 190,000 copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species (with special introduction by Ray Comfort) to 100 top campuses in the US. Our team of 30, led by Daniel Beaudoin of NorCal Seedsowers, passed out 2000 copies of this special 150th Anniversary edition.

Students were very happy to receive this free copy, since the bookstore sells it for $29. Many students said since their professors quote from it often, they were planning on getting their own copy. The special introduction features the biography of Darwin, the history of evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design vs Evolution, information on DNA, Darwin’s beliefs concerning God and Atheism, some comparative worldview and of course a Gospel message concerning sin, death, accountability to God, and forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ.

There was a campus protest going on (of course!) regarding the student fee hike. On the fringes of the crowds we were able to hand out books and have conversations with students away from the noise. The Atheist club students were following us around, handing out their literature to everyone who took our book. We had some rather civil and productive conversations with them also. All in all many seeds were sown and we are very thankful.

All day long we passed students reading the intro to the book. This one was sitting but most were reading it while they were walking. Most people were glad to get the book. We told everyone this edition had a special intro with discussion on the Creation/ Evolution debate. I only observed one person who was angry that it was a “Christian thing”; that man threw the book down on the ground in disgust. There were several young students who were interested in finding out what exactly was in the introduction, and this led to opportunities to share the Gospel with a few who were genuinely open and interested in hearing.

Adam passing out books and witnessing to students.

Jared passing out books and witnessing!

Via SEK, John Wilkins speculates on a world without Darwin.

SELECCIÓN NATURAL

Somos el Cosmos que se piensa a sí mismo, no está nada mal, aunque no seamos un copy+paste de Yahveh.

Charles Darwin

[ "El origen de las especies por medio de la selección natural, o la preservación de las razas preferidas en la lucha por la vida"

(título original en inglés: The Origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life) (…)

En su obra, Darwin no emplea en ningún momento el término "evolución" (…)

Mediante la teoría del origen común, Darwin logró integrar armoniosamente evidencias procedentes de campos tan dispares como labiogeografía, la paleontología, la anatomía comparada o la embriología. (…)

Al considerar el origen de las especies, es totalmente comprensible que un naturalista, reflexionando sobre las afinidades mutuas de los seres orgánicos, sobre sus relaciones embriológicas, su distribución geográfica, sucesión geológica y otros hechos semejantes, llegue a la conclusión de que las especies no han sido creadas independientemente, sino que han descendido, como variedades, de otras especies Darwin, El origen de las especies, p. 56

(…) La selección natural no crea las variaciones individuales, sino que las utiliza como material de construcción, como el hombre para crear variedades domésticas (p. 95). Lo único que puede hacer la selección natural es conservar y acumular variaciones útiles. “Si no aparecen éstas, la selección natural no puede hacer nada” (p. 132). (…)

A esta conservación de las diferencias y variaciones individualmente favorables y la destrucción de las que son perjudiciales la he llamado yo selección natural o supervivencia de los más adecuados.

p. 137

(…) Tanto la selección artificial como la selección natural tienen como resultado la transformación de las especies gracias a la acumulación progresiva de variaciones. La gran diferencia estriba en la dirección del cambio: dirigida hacia la utilidad del hombre, en un caso, ciega en el otro (p. 81). Sin embargo, en muchos casos la selección artificial se remonta a épocas tan remotas, que su efecto resulta inconsciente para los hombres (p. 88)

(…) el notable parentesco entre los habitantes de las islas y los de la tierra firme más próxima; el parentesco aún más estrecho de los distintos habitantes de las islas de un solo archipiélago— son inexplicables dentro de la opinión ordinaria de la creación independiente de cada especie; pero son explicables si admitimos la colonización desde el origen más próximo y fácil, unida a la adaptación subsiguiente de los colonos a su nueva patria

p.547 ] es.wikipedia.org

[ 1860 - el obispo de Oxford enfrenta a Thomas Huxley en un debate público sobre la evolución. (Ni Huxley ni Darwin usaban la palabra “evolución”)

(…)

Huxley, “prefiero descender de un simio

Thomas Henry Huxley

antes que de un obtuso como usted”.

(Algunos) Admitían la evolución (…) como la “transformación” de unas especies en otras. Lo que no aceptaban era la SELECCIÓN NATURAL.] sombra87.blogspot.com

LOS DRAGONES DEL EDÉN – Carl Sagan

<<Pero el libro de la vida es muy pródigo y, así, una molécula de ADN cromosómico del hombre está integrada por unos cinco mil millones de partes de nucleótidos. Las instrucciones genéticas de los restantes taxones terrestres están escritas en el mismolenguaje y con el mismo código.

Carl Sagan

Es evidente, pues, que este lenguaje genético común constituye un indicio de que todos los organismos de la Tierra tienen un solo antecesor, de que en el planeta se produjo una única manifestación de vida, hace aproximadamente cuatro mil millones de años(Págs.28-29) elmistico.com.ar

Imagen de Sagan stephenhand.com

Inicio

Darwin's Brave New World

A teoria da evolução através da selecção natural foi a ideia mais radical dentro da sociedade conservativa da Inglaterra do século XIX. Darwin passou dezenas de anos de trabalho em segredo, de forma árdua juntanto todas as peças do puzzle acerca da teoria da evolução  da vida na Terra, uma teoria que revela a beleza e crueldade da natureza. Darwin conhecia o poder do seu trabalho, poder esse que ainda hoje gera um feróz debate acerca do creacionismo/evolucionismo, volvidos já 150 anos.

“Darwins Brave New World” é uma série de 3 episódios que nos mostra de uma forma fantástica e incrível a história da sua brilhante mente, e a sua luta frente aos dogmas da época. Com comentários de grandes cientistas como Richard Dawkins ou David Suzuki.

É aqui possível vislumbrar de uma forma incrível como Darwin lutou durante tantos anos de forma a ter todas as certezas de que a sua teoria não teria qualquer lacuna ou falha de concepção. Vemos aqui um Darwin com problemas familiares e de saúde, um Darwin que sem a ajuda dos seus amigos e apoiantes cujo trabalho em conjunto tornou possível que tal teoria fosse realizada de forma tão simples e bela. Uma série MUST SEE para todos nós.

Apenas como nota deixo aqui os 3 anuncios que passaram na Tv Australiana (de onde é a série) sobre esta série:

Man Jumps Dog

Human Electricity Conductor

Flaming Javelin

Ficam aqui os links para os episódios através do RapidShare:

Episódio 1 – Origins:

Episódio 2 – Evoluções:

Episódio 3 – Publicação e Condenação:

Followings are Darwin contribution to understanding of emotional expresstion:

First major contribution : Darwin ’s conceptualized emotion as separate entity.

Second major contribution : Darwin mainly focused on the face.

Third major contribution : Facial expression of emotion are universal. Gestures are culture-specific  conventions.

• “Universality did not support his evolutionary theory”

Fourth major contribution : Emotions are found in many other species.

Fifth major contribution : Particular movements signal a particular emotion.

• Raising the upper lip to show canine teeth is an anger expression.

The issues of how to measure facial movement and how to define a boundaries of each emotion family, and  differnce between indicator and communicative signal were not covered by Darwin.

Le week-end du 14 novembre, nous sommes donc partis trois jours en Angleterre faire le plein de thé, de bières et d’anglais dans les rues! Nous avions pris un petit hôtel pour le jeudi soir près de la gare de King’s Cross, qui s’est révélé plutôt agréable malgré l’étroitesse des couloirs et la chaleur d’enfer dans l’entrée. Comme tous les hôtels londoniens de cette gamme, c’est un immeuble transformé et les chambres sont situées le long de couloirs un peu sineux. Le restaurant pour le petit déjeuner est plutôt petit, mais les toasts et le thé sont bons! Seul défaut selon Fabien: pas d’oeufs au bacon!

 Le vendredi matin, bon pied bon oeil, nous partons à 10h de l’hôtel pour déambuler dans les rues de London. Le matin, je voulais absolument retourner à Covent Garden. Je n’ai pas été déçue! J’ai retrouvé cette atmosphère de fête, d’art et de petits magasins bizarres que j’avais en tête. La période de Noël étant là, les décorations ajoutaient encore à cette ambiance particulière de cet endroit un peu hors du temps. Nous sommes rentrés dans un petit magasin vendant des articles “navals” au milieu des mugs pirates et des maquettes de bateaux. J’y ai trouvé une affiche que je cherchais depuis longtemps: “Why a ship is called a She?”

Après avoir visité un magasin de jeux pour enfants complètement hors du temps, et après avoir craqué pour une horloge originale et du thé (of course…), nous sommes partis déjeuner dans Chinatown. De mes souvenirs, j’ai retrouvé le restaurant où je m’étais déjà régalé. Tenu par des chinois, fréquenté par des chinois, ce petit restaurant ne paye pas de mine, et lorsque nous sommes entrés, je pense que nous étions les seuls “occidentaux”! Mais ce que c’était bon…

Ensuite, partant de la rue principale de Chinatown (qui s’appelle logiquement Gerrard street…), délimitée par des portes rouges au thème asiatique, nous avons longé les rues jusqu’à Picadilly Circus, toujours bondé. De là, nous avons tenté un raccourci qui nous a prolongé, mais nous a permis de découvrir de petites rues, et une jolie place tranquille et abritant la maison de la première femme au parlement anglais.

En arrivant sur Trafalgar Square, Nelson nous attendait campé en haut de sa colonne, gardée par ses lions majestueux et imposants. Les musées londoniens ayant la bonne idée d’être gratuits, nous sommes entrés à la National Gallery pour contempler les Turner, Monet, Manet, Picasso et autres Cézanne pour nous en mettre plein les yeux! J’aime vraiment beaucoup les tableaux de Turner, ils ont l’air tellement vivants que l’on a l’impression que la scène peinte va se mettre à bouger.

Les yeux repus, nous avons franchi ensuite la porte d’un pub à proximité pour déguster un thé accompagné d’un apple crumble pour moi et d’un chocolate pudding pour Fabien, arrosé bien sûr de Custard cream. Aaah les pubs anglais..et leur moquette à tous les étages, la lumière tamisée, les tables en bois foncé, les canapés profonds et confortables… Il est bien difficile de s’en sortir! Nous avons vu la nuit tomber sur Londres, les rues mouillées et pleines de parapluies, la colonne de Nelson se détachant devant la lune et les lumières de la ville, les cabines rouges dégoulinantes. Le tout combiné à la chaleur du thé et le confort douillet du pub, ce petit tea-time était bien agréable.

Ensuite, après avoir récupéré nos bagages à la consigne de King’s Cross (qui a plus de sécurité qu’un aéroport), nous avons pris le train pour Gatwick, où Arthur le Modus nous attendait pour nous emmener à Crawley. La conduite à gauche, étrangement, me semble toujours plus facile à reprendre, que lors du retour en France. Entrés dans une résidence nouvelle, nous avons découvert la nouvelle maison de ma “belle-soeur” et son ami. Je suis jalouse!! Elle est grande, lumineuse et bien agencée, et a une cuisine démente!

Le vendredi soir, nous avons dégusté un ragoût de poireaux au chorizo et aux patates douces délicieux. Dans la nuit, le vent s’est levé et c’est une vraie tempête qui a soufflé, durant jusqu’au matin. Lorsque nous nous sommes levés, le temps était très…british! Malgré tout, et comme prévu, nous sommes sortis et avons pris la route pour Down House, située à Downe, dans la région de Bromley, au sud-est de Londres.

Cette ancienne ferme agrandie et transformée en maison, était la demeure familiale de Charles Darwin. Aujourd’hui musée en son honneur, cette maison a connu ses études et recherches sur sa théorie de l’évolution naturelle. C’est là qu’il rédigea son fameux “The Origin of Species”, paru en 1859. Le musée retrace son enfance, son penchant pour la science naturelle, le voyage décisif sur le “Beagle” qui lui fera faire le tour du monde, ses influences diverses et variées, ses nombreuses recherches et écritures sur le monde qui nous entoure. Si le musée n’apporte pas de grandes nouveautés par rapport à ce qui est connu en général, les manuscrits originaux et la reconstitution de la cabine de Darwin à bord du Beagle sont très intéressants. Mais ce qui est particulier, c’est de se trouver dans les endroits où Darwin a vécu, pensé, rédigé, tout en s’occupant de ses enfants dont il était très proche, et où il est mort le 19 avril 1882, à l’âge avancé de 73 ans. Seul regret: en raison des conditions climatiques, nous n’avons pas pu visiter les jardins…Ce n’est que partie remise!

Nous avons ensuite déjeuné d’un sandwich dans la voiture, ce qui n’a pas manqué de nous faire rire…Cela dit, ce pique-nique dans un véhicule embué, sous la pluie, m’a rappelé les déjeuners dans le camping-car de mes parents que j’aimais tant, et j’en ai donc un joyeux souvenir ^^

Lorsque nous sommes rentrés à Crawley vers 16h, ce fut pour découvrir que le quartier entier de la résidence  faisait l’objet d’une coupure de courant… Nous avons profité des dernières lumières du jour pour installer le plateau du jeu du Seigneur des Anneaux…et avons terminé la partie aux bougies, qui heureusement étaient nombreuses! L’électricité est revenue à temps pour le dîner, vers 21h (c’est long, mais les anglais ne sont pas habitués au mauvais temps, à la pluie, au vent…..hem.), et avons donc pu manger les pies chaudes, suivies d’une soupe au curry savoureuse et d’un gâteau…aux betteraves et aux bananes. Si, si, ce gâteau est délicieux et je vais même tenter la recette.

Le lendemain midi, nous sommes allé bruncher dans un restaurant indien. En fait, il s’agit d’un buffet à volonté pendant lequel les serveurs sont très disponibles, toujours prêts à glisser une serviette ou demander si tout va bien. Parmi les entrées, je retiens leur très bon poulet tikka (il faut que je trouve une recette), pour les plats je retiens le curry, et le dessert unique dont le nom ne me revient pas était sucré sans être lourd. Bref, un bon brunch, que nous avons fait suivre d’une petite promenade dans les environs. Ma cheville me faisant un peu mal, nous sommes rentrés faire nos bagages, et avons eu le temps de prendre un dernier thé avant de partir pour la gare.

Porte à porte, de Crawley à Bois-Colombes, nous avons pris 5 trains et mis 6 heures! Et nous avons rapporté du thé, deux livres de Darwin, et … quelques pintes de bonnes ales!

Pour les photos commentées, vous pouvez aller sur la page dédiée dans Photographies

Today is the 150^th anniversary of publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species on 24 November 1859. It is time to recognise the fundamental flaw in his theory.

On 23 November 1859, Thomas Huxley wrote to Darwin pledging his support for the general principles in the book. At the same time he questioned why Darwin believed that external conditions had so little effect on species change. Even before Darwin’s book was published, Huxley identified the fundamental flaw in his theory.

Huxley’s Doubts

Huxley became the most influential public supporter of the theory, but until his death refused to accept that it had been proved. He always described it as the best hypothesis available. Huxley was satisfied that Darwin had proved beyond doubt the idea that all existing species were the result of branching evolution from common ancestors over long periods of time. What Huxley doubted was Darwin’s explanation of the mechanism by which evolution happened.

Darwin considered that the effects of external conditions were of so little significance that he excluded them from his explanation of species change, which he called Natural Selection. He wrote that “when a variation is of the slightest use to a being, we cannot tell how much of it to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the conditions of life”. Darwin decided that species change was not driven by external conditions, it was driven by internal attributes of individuals that favoured them in a Struggle for Existence.

Darwin’s Strange Logic

Darwin went to great lengths to argue against the belief that external conditions had any significant effect. When describing differences in plants growing in different climatic conditions, Darwin wrote that attributing the change in plant life wholly to the effect of differences in climate was “a very false view”. Species, and individuals within species, survived because they were favoured by their internal characteristics. Different species were favoured in different conditions. Strange logic indeed.

To those looking back from the 21^st century, the information presented by Darwin supported an argument that external conditions were a major driver of species change. Darwin twisted logic to reject the obvious conclusion. Darwin based his theory on a struggle in which individuals competed for survival. The struggle was more intense among individuals within a species because they competed for the same resources. In that Struggle for Existence some individuals were favoured by their internal qualities. It was not obvious to Darwin that it is external conditions that determine which internal attributes are favourable.

Compounding Darwin’s Error

Instead of heeding Huxley’s reservations, a decade later Darwin compounded his error by adopting the term Survival of the Fittest, which he said more accurately described his meaning. In doing so, he committed his theory even more deeply to the idea that it was internal qualities of individuals, not pressure from external conditions that drove evolution.

A century and a half later, most biologists reject the concept of Survival of the Fittest, yet they use as their basic assumptions Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, which Darwin wrote was best described by the term that modern biologists reject. On this significant anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin, something exceedingly strange is going on in the bowels of biology that does not stand up to unbiased, analytical scrutiny. That will be explored in posts to follow.

“Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England, on February 2, 1809.  His father was Robert Waring Darwin, a physician and son of the famous Erasmus Darwin, also a physician, as well as a respected writer and naturalist.  His mother was Susannah Wedgewood Darwin.  She died when Charles was eight.

Charles was educated in the local school, taught by Dr. Samuel Butler.  In 1825, he went to Edinburgh to start studying medicine, but he soon realized that he did not have the stomach for it!  So he switched to Cambridge, ostensibly to become a clergyman.  He was actually more interested in entomology — especially beetles — and in hunting.  He graduated from Christ’s College in 1831.

It is said that even when he was a young man, he had a patient and open mind, spending many hours collecting specimens of one sort or another and pondering over new ideas.  The idea of evolution was very much in the air in those times:  It was increasingly clear to naturalists that species change and have been changing for many millennia.  The question was, how did this happen?

One of his mentors, John Henslow, encouraged him to apply for the (unpaid!) position of naturalist on a surveying expedition on the now-famous vessel, the Beagle, under the command of Capt. Robert Fitz-Roy.  Charles left England for the first time in his life on December 27, 1831.  He wouldn’t return until October 2, 1836!

Most of the ship’s time was spent surveying the coasts of South America and nearby islands, but it would also visit various Pacific islands, New Zealand, and Australia.  It was the Galapagos Islands that most impressed him.  There he found that finches had evolved a variety of beaks — each suited to a particular food source.  Natural variation had somehow been selected to fit the ecological niches available on the tiny islands.

Upon returning, Darwin wrote several books based on his surveys on geology and the plant and animal species he had observed and collected.  He also published his journal as Journal of a Naturalist.  He notes that he was most impressed by the ways similar animals adapted to different ecologies.

From early on, Darwin recognized that selection was the principle men used so successfully when breeding animals.  What he needed now was an idea as to how nature could perform that task without the benefit of intelligence!

In 1838, he read a book by Malthus called Population.  Malthus introduced the idea that competition over limited resources would, in nature, keep populations stable.  He also warned that human populations, when straining resources, would suffer as well!

On January 29, 1839, Darwin married Emma Wedgewood, a cousin.  They lived in London for a few years, then settled in the village of Down, 15 miles outside London, where they lived the rest of their lives.  Darwin began suffering from an illness he had probably contracted from an insect bite in the Andes many years before.  Darwin’s son, Francis, later could not say enough about his mother’s dedication to his father’s well-being.  Without her, he would have been considerably less productive.  They would go on to have two daughters and five sons.

Darwin wrote a sketch of his theory in 1842.  In 1844, he wrote in a letter “At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.”

He was about half done with a full exposition of his ideas when he received an essay from A. R. Wallace, with a request for comments.  The essay outlined a theory of natural selection!  Wallace, too, had read Malthus, and in 1858, while sick from fever, had the whole idea come to him in one flash.  Darwin, in his reluctance, had postponed revealing his ideas to the scientific public for 20 years!

Darwin forwarded the essay to his friend, Sir Charles Lyell of the Geological Society, as Wallace had requested.  Lyell sent the essay on, with an essay by Darwin, for presentation at a scientific conference.

The point they jointly made was clear:  Just like men can exaggerate one or another minor variation by selectively breeding dogs or cattle, so nature selects similar variations — by only permitting the most successful variations to survive and reproduce in the struggle over limited resources.  Although the changes would be slight and slow, the millennia would permit the obvious diversity of nature!  Darwin named this natural selection.

In 1859, Darwin finally published his master work, on the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.  The book was an instant success.  There was also, of course, a great deal of debate — mostly concerning the contrast with traditional religious explanations of the natural world.

Natural selection was often confused with an earlier idea of the French naturalist Lamarck.  He suggested that characteristics acquired during an animal’s life were passed on to its offspring.  The famous example is how the constant stretching of the neck over many generations explains the giraffe’s unlikely physique.  This theory — Lamarckianism — was natural selection’s major competitor for decades to come!

In 1868, he published The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.  Then, in 1871, he came out with The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.  This was really two books in one.  The second part is about sexual selection.  This is what accounts for, for example, the bright colors of many male birds:  Both the males’ coloring and the attraction to the coloring on the part of the females during courtship are selected for because these variations benefit the offspring.

The Descent of Man portion of the book is a brief introduction to the idea that we, too, are the results of natural selection.  This part would lead to a lot of heated arguments!

In 1872, The Expression of Emotion was published.  This time, Darwin talks about the evolution of the signals that animals use to communicate — and relates those signals to human emotional expression.  This is the first step towards what we now call sociobiology (and evolutionary psychology).

In addition to these influential books, Darwin also enjoyed studying and writing about plants.  In 1862, he wrote Fertilization of Orchids.  In 1875, he came out with both Climbing Plants and Insectivorous Plants.  In I877, came Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species.  In 1880, he wrote, with his son Francis, The Power of Movement in Plants.  And in 1881, he published the famous Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms!

Charles Darwin died April 19, 1882.  He was buried in Westminster Abbey.  He was apparently a kind and gentle man, beloved by his family and friends alike.  Outside of his voyage on the Beagle, he rarely left his home in Down.  Reluctantly, he surrendered his religious beliefs and settled into an agnosticism that did not prevent him from participating with his parish in charitable works.”

The History Of Psychology, Part 3: The 1800’s

Dr. C. George Boeree

© Copyright 2000 C. George Boeree

Ali.♥

posted/written by caroline picard

Woody Allen Woody Allen Woody Allen

An older gentleman, he came upon a fallen Redwood, collapsed and soundless in the yellow grass. The sun was hot, it stole the sound and smell from the air, except sometimes the man heard a buzzing fly land and when it landed everything was more silent than it had been before. The man studied the log, imagined its figure wearing away with rot, woodmites and termites and peculiar worms, until it wore down into dust—the shit of insects—and fed the dull earth.

Instead, the man took a cast of the tree:

He hired a team of employees and together they gathered around its stupendous girth. They raised the dead log on pedestals—sweating, the whine of the chainsaw—cutting the trunk into eight three foot cross-sections. They took elaborate photographs of each of the tree’s parts. Like a murder scene, quadrants of the surrounding area were taped off. Surrounding tree trunks bore neon pink symbols of work on their bases. Everything was documented.  Everyone wore rubber gloves.

They took a cast of its massive breadth, width, length in sections:

sealing the tree in soap, they poured wax around its parts just before nightfall and in the night the wax hardened and in the morning they cut the wax off in clean, re-sealable pieces. They sent those pieces to Japan in a very cool box.

What came back:

The tree—a new one, it resembled the original—came back without the wax, for the wax had been burned to make the new tree. The tree came in parts, the same eight three-foot cross-sections. Its parts made of wood, not Redwood but Hinoki. Its surface had been carved in a myriad of patterns, different borring strokes; the surface of the replica was carved to look like the surface of the old. This new wood blonder and clean looking, though with the self-same hollowed core of its dead predecessor.

There was a note attached to the mid-section.

Someone was asked to translate:

Once put together, this tree will last 400 years, before hitting a crisis of 100 years, during which it will crack. Thereafter it will last another 400 years before it begins to decompose.

*

Manhattan, New York, 2009: Mr. Allen finds himself sat in the corner window of a high-rise apartment—his own, (he can tell by the family photographs, framed and standing on the bookshelves, and the side table too).  He recognizes the pattern on the carpet; it looks to be Persian, red and black interlaced geometries. He remembers the smell of the place—the smell is both familiar and difficult to perceive; it must be a smell belonging to him.

Soon-yi sounds to be making coffee in the adjacent kitchen and he can hear the clattering of domestic objects as she opens and closes kitchen drawers, cabinets, the dish washer; he can hear utensils bump up against interior wooden walls. Mr. Allen conjures a flash of light pouncing on the landscape of things, sprung suddenly from the dark. He wonders if objects possess a sense of being.

It is as if I am in a dream, he thinks assuming a moment of adolescent existentialism. My actions are not entirely my own but I am more or less comfortable. He looks at his hands clasped in his lap and feels, for a moment, the texture of the corduroy underneath. Past his hands, legs, he looks at his feet in brown, waspy loafers. He isn’t wearing socks. For a moment he imagines his actors feel this way in a set and, going against better judgment, makes the disquieting attempt to peer over the bounds of his imagined consciousness—

into the dark, a mottled grey behind his eyes, either the color of his brain or simply the color of what he’ll never know—

His eyes glassy, he looks at you without seeing. “Talk to me, shout at me, so that I’ll wake up and know that I’m here with you and that certain things really are just dreams.” He is merely talking to himself, a recitation.

Truth be told, he cannot remember living in any other place. At the same time he does not remember how he came to be here.

He lifts a hand to feel his upper lip, relieved to find the moustache still in place.

*

The first opera singer ever recorded had past her prime when she was recorded. By then an old woman in her career, her voice wove through the aria like burning paper. Upon listening to the record, people of then recalled how remarkable she’d been before, as a young woman. “The best,” they told their children, smitten by nostalgia.

Children, when grown, repeated the rumor to respective children. And everyone, ever since, has believed the first opera singer recorded to be the best singer there ever was, for their memories make her so and there is no evidence to the contrary.

*

The young people aren’t any good in his movies. Terrible actors. They don’t understand. They try too much to be like him; they aren’t like him enough. They don’t listen to his direction. They impersonate rather than become. Scarlet Johansson. Jason Briggs. Christina Ricci.

Mr. Allen crosses one leg over the other, relishing contempt. Doughy and plump and taut. Ripe. Budding.

The aroma of coffee wafts into the living room.

*

The dream is one of paradise. In the dream men and women live forever, a glistening surface projected by the whirring of gears and oil and machinations run by invisible, grease-stained hands. The dream is one of desire.

*

Mr. Allen has a hand on his temple. His eyes are closed and therefore he does not see the grey day so much as he feels it. Or, discovers the feeling of it. He can picture it in his mind. The leaves are turning in the park below, across the street; he does not see these either. He knows only they are there. For a moment he imagines that the changing leaves are expressed in the sound of loose interior cutlery. He thinks of the sun as something that pounces.

And then he concentrates:

Music comes from a computer on the desk in the opposite corner of the room. It sounds like it comes from a phonograph. Concentrating on static, the overarching fuzz and pop, as bad as any radio station, he imagines the music to be broadcast from the past.

Mr. Allen presses his fingers into his eyes, pinching the lids together almost, feeling a dull pressure in the back of his head. In the darkness behind his eyes; trying desperately to imagine what she might have sounded like—this siren—when she was young. Feeling through the static, for the traces of her youth. Straining back into the past, her voice the bridge.

In a record, he believes, there is the promise of eternity.

*

Someone said LA was like a Dream Factory. He said working in the Dream Factory was pretty tiring; he was pretty tired of making dreams. He complained about the silt he was always breathing—dream silt. He hoped one day to unionize the workers.

*

In a club in Brooklyn with Soon-yi: Mr. Allen has come to the conclusion that Soon-yi’s friends, boys mostly, hide their sexuality from him. He is conscious of the shadows in the basement barroom—no windows, barely any light. Drums clatter and dash and bang as Mr. Allen is jostled occasionally by flanking, shiny strangers.

“One time in Romania I went to a bar we drank in bars that used to be dungeons they used to torture people in those bars. No I’m serious you could still see the burn marks on the sides of the brick where they used to keep lit torches while they tortured people.” Soon-yi can’t hear him and she smiles in a dreamy way watching the young boys on stage, watching the people at the club, hiding her mouth behind her hand; hiding her mouth from her friends across the room. Mr. Allen feels the shadows like a blanket. “I’ve been feeling so odd lately. I can’t explain. I don’t feel myself,” he says. “I must be getting sick. You can have my whole fortune.” Stuttering. “Did you hear? They finally arrested Polanski.” But Soon-yi does not hear because she’s dancing also, jostling up and down against the others in the room and Mr. Allen feels like an old man wearing socks.

It occurs to him that he will die childless, save for those things that he made in discrete instances; things starring himself in scenes he could control.

*

When Charles Darwin’s turtle, Harriet, died in 2006, they discovered her organs had not aged at all. It was believed that, barring disease or accident, turtles could live forever for evidence of time was not apparent on any of her interior organs.

In Hollywood there is a single mother selling serums of Harriet’s DNA on e-bay. It was manufactured abroad. Black market. It has not been tested. Some of her clients: Ashley Olson, Elizabeth Taylor, Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson etc.

*

The next band comes on stage, just after Mr. Allen looks at his watch, notes the time and wonders what time he might be able to go home—

Soon-yi talks to some of her male friends at the bar.

Mr. Allen looks around at everyone in the room and shakes his head. He looks again on stage.

The keyboardist looks exactly like him. Only younger. And shorter. Should the keyboardist step off the stage, he might stand a head shorter than Mr. Allen. Everything else about the fellow is spot on. He hears Soon-yi giggling across the room. He imagines her covering her mouth.

“I have a proposition for you,” Mr. Allen says after the show. There are candles on the bar and they cast an irregular but welcome light. “I would like to hire you. Assume my life.” They sit at the bar. His doppelganger drinks a whisky Mr. Allen has bought. “I’ll pay you very well.” Mr. Allen’s hands dance around for emphasis. He finds himself regularly touching the young man, occasionally going so far as to pinch the fellow’s shoulders now and again, testing the fellow’s firmness. The sensation is exhilarating. Mr. Allen wonders, abstractly, if he was himself the same density once.

“Why should I do that?” the young man asks. He looks amused. He wears a plaid cowboy shirt with opalescent, buttons—snaps. Tight black jeans on and converse. Sideburns and Buddy Holly glasses. He smokes. His hands are smaller than Mr. Allen’s.

“Only, you’d have to cut down your sideburns.” Mr. Allen says, worried suddenly, brow knit. He studies the youth, looking for other discrepancies. “And maybe get just a slightly different haircut. I understand the times are different, but at least for the transition period, you’ll need to adopt a little more of my style.” With a sudden clarity of thought, Mr. Allen smiles, relived. “Oh! I know. You’ll have to go away for a while. I’ll send out a press release. I’ll say I’m going abroad. You go abroad too. We can meet in another part of the world, somewhere where no one will know who we are. Then I can teach you how to be me. Then you can come back to America. It’s very simple, really. We could even make movies abroad. When you, ‘I’” he smiles and winks, “come back, no one will ever know the difference.” The young man shakes his head. He seems not to understand. “This has to be good.” Mr. Allen continues. “I’ll pay you an exorbitant amount of money—where do you work? Retail?”

“Record store.”

“Right. Good. Well. You’re rich. Did you think it would be this easy?”

*

In the end:

After the first recording of the opera singer, but before the death of Harriet, an anthropologist and a sociologist made a movie with a cameraman and they traipsed around Paris and Saint-Tropez playing tag with a camera. The interviewee became the interviewer, each time asking, “Are you happy?”

No one was famous.

'SKID MARKS'

An 18 year old man has told Northern Territory Police – two Irish Backpacker’s stole his Toyota Hilux Ute and then crashed it at the site of Darwin’s War Memorial.

The teenager reported the theft at the Darwin City Police Station just after mid-night. According to Superintendent John Emeny, the man told Officers: “Whilst he got out to have a cigarette  … two Irish backpackers jumped into his vehicle and drove off causing it to roll.”

But under further questioning by Officers at the scene of the crash, the teenager admitted he had made the story up. He told Police the crash occurred while he was doing donuts on the grassy area in-front of the Cenotaph, at the Eastern end of Darwin’s Esplanade. The right-hand side front wheels dug into the dirt at one stage and a shift in weight caused the Ute to roll onto its side.

'FILLING THE GAPS'

Darwin City Council workers spent several hours repairing the damage to the grass, filling in ‘wheel-rut’ marks left by the speeding car. 40 metres from the Cenotaph, the grassy area is used to seat the thousands of people who attended the Bombing of Darwin, ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day Celebrations each year.

Darwin Lord Mayor Graeme Sawyer believes the damage to the Cenotaph was limited because the ground is still hard, just weeks away from the wet season. But Mr Sawyer is appalled by the behaviour of the teenager, considering the significance of the area. “You’d have to be pretty stupid wouldn’t ya … obviously alcohol played a part. But just the attitude of someone who’d do something like this”.. The Lord Mayor said.

 The 18 year old recorded a blood alcohol level of one point six three – more than three times the legal limit. Police have also impounded the teenager’s Ute for 48 hours, using new Northern Territory anti-hooning legislation.  

'THE HOON VEHICLE'

Quer ser peitudo? Bundudo? Merece ser segregado!

É nojento. Mas por volta de 0:50 ele dança. E piora.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of my buddy Charles Darwin’s publication of his legendary “The Origin of Species”. In celebration, the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto has organised a conference entitled “150 years after Origin: Biological, historical, and philosophical perspectives” which began today.

Having been offered the chance of attending this conference free of the registration fees, and being partial to philosophy and obviously Darwin, I jumped on the conference wagon. I have to say that my high hopes were somewhat thwarted – mainly because I found that the presentations lacked focus, and that most presenters literally read their pre-prepared speeches from pieces of paper. However, there was one speaker who did manage to keep me interested – but of course, when the subject involves female orgasm, who wouldn’t be interested.

Here is an excerpt (from Elisabeth Lloyd’s website):

“Women come in all these different flavours of whether they’re very orgasmic or whether they’re not orgasmic at all. That kind of variation, that range of variation is just what you would expect if the trait of orgasm were not serving an evolutionary function, because if female orgasm were under the pressure of selection, then those women with orgasm would have relatively more children and over many generations, the population would consist of more and more women being orgasmic and women who did not have orgasm and women who rarely did would become extinct, but that’s not what we find.”

Essentially, she argues that the scientific community has historically tended towards more adaptationist explanations of the female orgasm (that the female orgasm is purposefully evolved i.e. the sperm upsuck account that claims that the female orgasm functions to aid the sperm in travelling through the uterus) both because of a) a bias towards adaptive explanations of evolution in general and b) a male-centric view of orgasm. Turns out, much of the evidence supporting adaptive views of female orgasm are seriously flawed in terms of both experimental design and in statistical analysis of results.

Instead, most of the observations seem to point to the fact that traits associated with female orgasm are much too variable to conclude selection on the trait i.e. clitoral length is 3 times as variable as penile length; an even distribution across the population of females experiencing 0-100% frequency of orgasms etc.

Her conclusion is that rather than evoking an adaptive evolution, the existence of female orgasm can just as easily be understood when taking into account that fact that male and female embryos share the same basic body plan during embryological development. Hence, like the male nipple, female orgasm can exist simply as a “byproduct” of developmental patterns. Males need penis’ and the ability to orgasm to reproduce successfully, and because the penis and its female counterpart, the clitoris, are laid down in the basic body plan early on in embryological development, females get them as well!

I’m not entirely convinced of her theory yet since I’m not aware of the methodological vigor in which the data was collected, but there you have it ladies, lets just be thankful that we have this “fantastic bonus” as Elisabeth Lloyd calls it. I wonder whether men will stop bothering with female orgasm when they find out this little tidbit?

But seriously, clitoral length is 3 times as variable as penile length – that’s both crazy and scary!!!

I’ve been sheepishly challenged recently with so-called ”evidence” for evolution in the form of chromosome fusion. Knowing full well that such an event is self-destructive in that it is, in most cases, fatal and in every other case it produces either infertility or gametically isolated mutant offspring. I’ve decided to go the lazy route and simply paste an article written by IDEA because I would simply be repeating the thoughts already written by them. So here it is:

By Casey Luskin (originally written in Oct. of 2005, some updates and changes added later.)

Dr. Kenneth Miller was the leadoff hitter for plaintiffs last week in the trial over ID in Dover. Amidst other things, Miller’s testimony was aimed at making a case that the Neo-Darwinian hypothesis is as well-supported as gravitational theory. It was my understanding that this trial was about whether or not Dover had violated the First Amendment by mentioning to students that some book in the library advocated intelligent design. So I was a little confused as to why it was relevant for Miller to give us all a lesson in evolutionary biology. Nonetheless, this article will respond to Dr. Miller’s arguments that evidence for fusion in human chromosome #2 demonstrates that humans share a common ancestor with living apes.

According to Neo-Darwinism, humans and extant apes supposedly share a common ancestor. During Dr. Miller’s testimony supporting the theory of evolution, he discussed how human chromosome #2 has two centromeres, which are the central – attachment points used for pulling a chromosome to one end of a cell during mitosis. Chromosomes normally only have one centromere, but human chromosome # 2 looks like two chromosomes were fused together within its interior because it has two centromeres (or at least, it has one normal centromere, and another region that looks a lot like a centromere elsewhere within the chromosome). Miller further noted that human chromosome #2 has a section where there are two telomeres, structures normally at the tips of chromosomes, which are found in the middle of chromosome #2. Essentially, these two telomeres are oriented in a way that it looks, genetically speaking, like the ends of two chromosomes were fused together.

I am more than willing to acknowledge and affirm that Miller provided good direct empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. He claims this evidence strongly supports his view that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, because humans have two fewer chromosomes than chimp, and Darwinian evolution predicts this fusion evidence. But his argument raises two crucial questions:

(1) Is his chromosome fusion story good evidence for Neo-Darwinian common ancestry between humans and apes?
(2) Does Dr. Miller’s hypothesis perhaps pose problems for a Neo-Darwinian account of human genetic history?

As will be discussed below, the answer to Question (1) is “No” and the answer to Question (2) is “Yes.”

Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes
Usually Darwinists argue for human-ape common ancestry based upon alleged “shared errors” in human DNA and ape DNA. But the chromosomal fusion evidence is not a “shared error” argument for human / ape common ancestry, because apes do not have a fused chromosome. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human / ape common ancestry.

All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.

To be more specific, the fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes. But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes. (I grant that our chromosome #2 has banding patterns similar to two ape chromosomes, but given that our chromosome structure is generally similar to that of apes anyways, it is not a stretch to assume that any 48 chromosome ancestor of modern humans might have also had a chromosomal scheme similar to that of apes, regardless of whether or not that individual was related to apes. Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = common ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history.

Under Neo-Darwinism, the common ancestor of humans and apes is thought to have lived about six million years ago. But under Miller’s account, it is entirely possible that this chromosomal fusion event happened in a human population only 10,000 years ago, in a population that has no relation to living apes. In such a case, this chromosomal fusion event thus needs not have anything to do with making us human-like as opposed to ape-like. Clearly this chromosomal fusion event could be extremely far removed from any alleged ancestry with apes.

In essence, we don’t know that this chromosomal fusion event happened on a line which leads back to some alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. All we know is that this fusion event happened in the line that led to you and me. Whether that line has common ancestry with apes is a separate question which cannot be answered by this fusion evidence.

All that evolutionists have claimed is that this fusion event occurred after the split that led to humans, so it occurs only in the human lineage. Evidence of a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence that our line leads all the way back to apes.

Given that we had a 48-chromosome ancestor, we don’t know if our 48-chromosome ancestor was an ape or not. For all we know, our 48-chromosome ancestor was a part of a separately designed species, as fully human as any person you might meet on the street today. There is no good reason to think that going from a 46-chromosome individual to a 48-chromosome individual would make our species more ape-like.

“The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.” – Casey Luskin

Miller’s “prediction” of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a hard prediction of his theory: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true.

It only gets worse for Neo-Darwinism
Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller’s Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like “how could a fusion event get fixed into a population via random and unguided processes, or how could it result in viable offspring?” Miller’s account must overcome two potential obstacles:

(1) In most of our experience, individuals with randomly-fused chromosomes or extra chromosomes can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Translocation Down’s syndrome, where part of chromosome 21 become fused to another chromosome, resulting in extra material from chromosome 21 in an individual, causing Down’s syndrome.

(2) One way around the problem in (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event or chromosomal splitting event. But this would require a rare mutant finding a mate with identical traits. Valentine and Erwin explain that the odds of rare-mutants finding mates with identical traits are highly unlikely: “[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event.”

(Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. “‘Hopeful monsters,’ transposons, and the Metazoan radiation”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors. Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous, perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans.

Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration could have created a non-viable mutant, or a normal individual who could not produce viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous.

If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.

So then to further emphasize the final point it appears that in order for fused chromosomes to function they must be a part of the original design. That seems to be the proper scientific position… in case anyone’s interested.

Thanks to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Please visit them here.

Em uma coisa todos nós concordamos, sabemos pouco!

Muito pouco além do que nossa generalização genética vem impulsionando-nos à distribuição de girinos em cavernas alheias (Entendam como quiser).

Também concordo com a teorização feita pelo nosso velho amigo Anarco em seu blog, como de praxe, tal tema surge com uma frequencia mediana entre idas ao Sr Vavá, O’Malleys e demais locais com a aquisição de álcool em meio a questionamentos existenciais.

(Assim como ocorre em reuniões de Luluzinhas o mesmo questionamento, quiçá com mais frequencia e de forma até bem pejorativa-comparativa).

Não adianta desenvolver-se apenas antropologicamente, espiritualmente, racionalmente ou filosoficamente. Buscar compreensão e respostas unindo ao máximo tais quesitos faz com que, ao meu entendimento, torne o “ser” mais completo.

Por exemplo, achei muito interessante o livro Kamasutram escrito pelo nobre e celibatário hindu, Vatsyayana, em meados do século IV. Seu livro denota que para alcançar a elevação final do ser, é preciso praticar sempre o Dharma (Elevação espiritual), o Artha (Elevação social) e o Kama (Elevação do amor/prazer).

Antes que eu me esqueça, NÃO, o livro não contem figurinhas ou detém dados ilustrados com posições para brincar com sua parceira(o).

Portanto, se pensarmos que milhares de mulheres ocupam frações de seu tempo livre com pompoarismo, buscando assim o Kama, o mínimo que devemos fazer como homens é retribuir o favor. Caso não considere importante o quesito, “evolução de seu ser”, imagine que está sendo altruísta. Aprimore-se e faça direito, elas merecem!

Agora que conotei um certo embasamento teórico, vou relatar algumas observações práticas.

Sobre o quase místico e contraditório ponto de Gräfenberg, posso dizer que, ao utilizar-me de algumas formas BEM distintas notei uma euforia demasiada de minha parceira durante o ato. Procurei me informar melhor a respeito e de fato, algumas são descritas como excelentes maneiras de conseguir, ou chegar bem próximo, do famigerado orgasmo tântrico feminino.

Mais interessante ainda, dá até para calcular através de regras simples de cálculo II e geometria analítica, a assertividade para tal êxtase feminino. Ou seja, se achar que sua parceira não está eufórica o suficiente, retorne à prancheta e acrescente alguns graus na triangulação.

Vou descrever a seguir duas das cinco melhores maneiras rumo ao orgasmo “G” feminino. E também das quais, eu, particularmente considero muito eficazes, utilizando-me da forma Anarcoplayba® de classificação.

1° Método, “Cadeirinha Tombada”: Inicie com o clássico papai-mamãe, porém, ao adentrar, peça para que sua parceira levante as pernas e posicione os pés nos seus ombros ou em sua caixa toráxica (Não notei diferenças que valham ser comentadas entre os pés no ombro ou no tórax). Com isso, ajoelhe-se e use as coxas dela como suporte, até porque, provavelmente, ela vai sinalizar/puxar seu quadril ao ir em direção a ela.

Obs.: Não dê uma de Shrek! Dessa forma a penetração é profunda e com isso você pode machucá-la, afinal, está mirando atrás do osso pubiano dela e não no umbigo.

2° Método, “Pistão ao Sol”: Sente-se no chão OU na cama pois vai precisar esticar as pernas e apoiar os braços para trás, como se estivesse em um domingo de Sol ao lado da psicina. Peça para sua parceira que fique sobre você, porém, que ela posicione os pés sob suas coxas e os joelhos ao chão/cama, apoiando então os braços entre suas pernas e inclinando-se levemente para trás.

Obs.: É ela que o conduz, se ficar imaginando que está participando de uma “maratona de levantamento de peso”, não vai fazer pressão suficiente onde deve, vai ferrar o seu joelho e o dela. Portanto não seja um pamonha!

Moral da história, “Foder os outros faz parte da vida. Mas se tiver que fazê-lo, faça bem feito“.
Adendo 01: Para quem gostaria de ler um pouco o Kamasutram de Vatsyayana, http://www.pitbook.com/English/texts/pdf/kamasutra.pdf

Adendo 02: Apesar de eu só confiar e usar PreservExtra (Sintam-se segregados). Segregalistas inscritos! http://www.useprudence.com.br/promocoes/

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim

Thursday evening DhulQada 24, 1430 (November 12, 2009)

Sheykh Abdul Kerim Efendi is saying that mankind became robotic slaves to their machines. They forgot why they are living, that they are supposed to be servants to the Creator. The government promotes slavery through education that teaches wrong things: darwinism and running after enjoyment. We are not free, but prisoners between two breaths.

Download (35:37 mins) | Listen to the sohbet:

RESSONÂNCIA MÓRFICA: A TEORIA DO CENTÉSIMO MACACO

Era uma vez duas ilhas habitadas pela mesma espécie de macaco. Depois de várias tentativas e erros, um esperto símio da ilha “A” descobre uma maneira engenhosa de quebrar cocos, para melhor aproveitar a água e a polpa. Por imitação, o procedimento se difunde entre seus companheiros, e logo uma população crítica de 99 macacos domina a nova metodologia. Quando o centésimo símio da ilha “A” aprende a técnica recém-descoberta, os macacos da ilha “B” começam, espontaneamente, a quebrar cocos da mesma maneira. Não houve nenhuma comunicação convencional entre as duas populações: o conhecimento simplesmente se incorporou aos hábitos da espécie.

Esse exemplo fictício ilustra uma das mais ousadas e instigantes idéias científicas da atualidade: a hipótese dos “campos mórficos”, proposta pelo biólogo inglês Rupert Sheldrake. Segundo o cientista, os campos mórficos são estruturas que se estendem no espaço-tempo e moldam a forma e o comportamento de todos os sistemas do mundo material. Átomos, moléculas, cristais, células, tecidos, órgãos, organismos, sociedades, ecossistemas, sistemas planetários, galáxias: cada uma dessas entidades estaria associada a um campo mórfico específico, uma espécie de inteligência ativa, estruturante, que faz com que um sistema seja um sistema, e não um mero ajuntamento de partes.[...]

Ao contrário dos campos físicos, os campos mórficos de Sheldrake não envolvem transmissão de energia. O que se transmite por meio deles é pura informação. É isso que nos mostra o exemplo dos macacos. Nele, o conhecimento adquirido por um conjunto de indivíduos agrega-se ao patrimônio coletivo, provocando um acréscimo de consciência que passa a ser compartilhado por toda a espécie. O processo responsável por essa coletivização da informação foi batizado por Sheldrake com o nome de “ressonância mórfica”. Por esta, as informações se propagam no interior do campo mórfico, alimentando uma espécie de memória coletiva, num processo difuso e não intencional. [...]

Com postulados tão insólitos, não espanta que a hipótese de Sheldrake tenha causado polêmica. Em 1981, seu primeiro livro, A New Science of Life, foi recebido com reações diametralmente opostas: a New Scientist elogiava o trabalho como “importante pesquisa científica”; a Nature o considerava “o melhor candidato à fogueira em muitos anos”. Desta vez seria a ciência oficial jogando a ciência na fogueira, ao enfrentar uma hipótese que tromba com a concepção materialista dominante.

A corrente majoritária da Biologia vangloria-se de reduzir a atividade dos organismos vivos à mera interação físico-química entre moléculas e faz do DNA resposta para todos os mistérios da vida. A realidade, porém, é complexa demais para caber no molde reducionista oficial. Um exemplo é o processo de diferenciação e especialização celular que caracteriza o desenvolvimento embrionário. Como explicar que um aglomerado de células absolutamente iguais, dotadas do mesmo patrimônio genético, dê origem a um organismo complexo, no qual órgãos diferentes e especializados se formam, com precisão milimétrica, no lugar certo e no momento adequado? A Biologia reducionista diz que isso se deve à ativação ou inativação de genes específicos, fato que depende das interações de cada célula com as outras células e o meio ambiente. Segundo Sheldrake, é preciso estar completamente entorpecido por um sistema de crenças para engolir uma “explicação” dessas.

O código genético coordena a síntese das proteínas, determinando a seqüência exata dos aminoácidos na construção das macromoléculas. Mas “a maneira como as proteínas se distribuem dentro das células, as células nos tecidos, os tecidos nos órgãos, e os órgãos nos organismos, não está programada no código genético”, afirma Sheldrake. “Dados os genes corretos, e portanto as proteínas adequadas, supõe-se que o organismo, de alguma maneira, se monte automaticamente. É mais ou menos como enviar, na hora certa, os materiais corretos para um local de construção e esperar que a casa se construa espontaneamente.”

A morfogênese, isto é, a modelagem formal de sistemas biológicos seria ditada por um tipo particular de matriz determinada no campo mórfico, os “campos morfogenéticos”. Se as proteínas correspondem ao material de construção, os “campos morfogenéticos” desempenham um papel semelhante ao da planta do edifício. Ressalve-se apenas que a planta é um conjunto estático de informações; os campos morfogenéticos, ao contrário, estão em permanente interação e se transformam o tempo todo graças ao processo de ressonância mórfica.

Outro fenômeno que desafia a Biologia reducionista e conspira a favor da hipótese dos campos morfogenéticos é o da regeneração de organismos simples, que ocorre em espécies como a dos platelmintos, por exemplo. Se um animal desses for cortado em pedaços, cada parte se transforma num organismo completo, independentemente da forma como o verme é seccionado. O paradigma científico mecanicista, de base cartesiana, capota desastrosamente diante de um caso assim. Descartes concebia os animais como autômatos, e uma máquina perde a integridade e deixa de funcionar sem algumas de suas peças. Um organismo como o platelminto, ao contrário, parece estar associado a uma matriz invisível, que lhe permite regenerar a forma original mesmo que partes importantes sejam removidas.

(Adaptado de: ARANTES, José Tadeu. Disponível em: http://www.inconscientecoletivo.net)

 Leia mais:

Texto na íntegra:

http://inconscientecoletivo.net/category/fisica-quantica/

Prova do Vestibular – Faculdade Evangélica do Paraná – Medicina http://www.fepar.edu.br/fepar/images/provas/prova%20medicina%202009.pdf

Entrevista com Sheldrake:

http://www.ilea.ufrgs.br/episteme/portal/pdf/numero22/episteme22_hoffmann.pdf

Livros:

O Renascimento da Natureza: o Reflorescimento da Ciência e de Deus, de Rupert Sheldrake, Ed. Cultrix

Caos, Criatividade e o Retorno do Sagrado: Triálogos nas Fronteiras do Ocidente, de Ralph Abraham, Terence McKenna e Rupert Sheldrake, Ed. Cultrix/Pensamento

A New Science of Life: the Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance, de Rupert Sheldrake. Paperback.