Transcript of Microevolucion y Macro evolucionn. microevolucion es la evolución a pequeña macroevolucion son los cambios evolutivos que. Check out my latest presentation built on , where anyone can create & share professional presentations, websites and photo albums in minutes. Read the latest magazines about Microevolucion and discover magazines on Microevolución, macroevolución y logaritmos · es.

Author: Moogutaxe Sharn
Country: Guyana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 23 September 2017
Pages: 23
PDF File Size: 2.60 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.53 Mb
ISBN: 893-5-98356-291-1
Downloads: 19475
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kara

Microevolucion y Macro evolucionn by Sandra Milena Preciado Quevedo on Prezi

JC e-mailde 26 de Setembro de Duas delas foram descritas a partir desses achados, a Baurussuchus e Armadillosuchus arrudae. The RNA world hypothesis: Harold S Bernhardt 1. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. Progress macroeolucion Biophysics and Molecular Biology Rethinking the Im Possible in Evolution. University of Chicago, jsha uchicago. Science inevitably operates in ignorance of future developments.

(Resumen) Macroevolución y micro evolución by florencia ponce on Prezi

Results and concepts that seem inconceivable in one period become conventional wisdom in later decades and centuries. The history of science is replete with examples Kuhn Moreover, it is often the case that we cannot perceive the blinders we impose on ourselves out of philosophical commitments rather than empirical necessities.

Evolutionary thinking began in the 18th Century, at the same time as other fields in biology were transforming into more professional and rigorous disciplines Stott In the microecolucion half of the 19th Century, the Darwinian ideas of gradual change and natural selection as a creative force engaged in a fierce battle with religious ideas of divine creation over the explanation of biological diversity.

In order to macroevolucikn the teleological arguments of William Paley for a divine watchmaker Paley republishedthe evolutionists rigorously excluded all notions of goal-oriented activity from their theories.

In keeping with 19th Century mathematical thermodynamics, they insisted upon randomness at the microscopic level as the basis for macroscopic effects. As evolutionary thinking integrated Mendelian genetics into the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis Huxleyit adopted the mechanistic thinking that prevailed following the intense Mechanism-Vitalism debate of the early 20th Century.

The vitalists, like Hans Driesch, argued that there must be something special about living organisms that informed their activities Driesch Since the vitalists could not explain the nature of their hypothetical special life force, the mechanists prevailed for the rest of the 20th Century. The issues in the Mechanism-Vitalism debate survive to the present day.

It macroevolucipn possible to describe the cell and multicellular organisms in precise molecular terms. However, the rest of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century provided macroevolycion finely ironic turn to the philosophical debate. As molecular biology advanced, macroevilucion began midroevolucion uncover ever more complex and sophisticated multi-molecular networks that carry out sensory, communication, regulatory and decision-making activities within and between cells Gerhart and Kirschner ; Alberts, Johnson et macroevolucjon.

At the same time, the 20th Century development of cybernetics, computers and electronic information-processing systems began to provide real-world examples for capacities the maceoevolucion saw at work in living organisms.

The information revolution had come to biology. This contribution to the macroevloucion attempts to outline how the biological information revolution and its underlying molecular observations impact our thinking about evolution. The intentionally ambivalent title is there for the following reason.

Showing how previously excluded i. Algum cientista tupiniquim se habilita??? Em eu escrevi no meu perfil neste blog: Eu fui ateu marxista-leninista. Chegou a hora de dizer adeus a Darwin. Chimpanzee Sex Perception” Frans Mzcroevolucion.


Pokorny, Advanced Science Letters, vol. He completed his postdoctoral study of chimpanzees while associated with Utrecht University, inand moved the same year to the USA.

Sarah Djebali et al. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene. This supports and macroevolucon consistent with earlier observations of a highly interleaved transcribed genome, but more importantly, prompts the reconsideration of the definition of a gene.

Concomitantly, the term gene would then denote a higher-order concept intended to capture all those transcripts eventually divorced from their genomic locations that contribute to a given phenotypic trait. On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA.

Separating the Pseudo From Science. Jonathan Twingley for The Chronicle Review. The term “pseudoscience” gets thrown around macroevoluciion a bit these days, most notably in debates about the dominant consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

Say “pseudoscience,” and immediately a bunch of doctrines leap to mind: Do they have anything in common? Some posit unknown forces of nature, others don’t. Some are advocated by outsiders to the scientific community, while others have been backed by the elite. And the status of each can fluctuate over time. Astrology, for example, was considered an exemplary field of natural knowledge from antiquity through the Renaissance.

The renowned philosopher Karl Popper coined the term “demarcation problem” to describe the quest to distinguish science from pseudoscience. He also proposed a solution. As Popper argued in a lecture, “The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability. That seems clear enough. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work. Epistemologists present several challenges to Popper’s argument. First, how would you know when a theory has been falsified? Suppose you are testing a particular claim using a mass spectrometer, and you get a disagreeing result.

The theory might be falsified, or your mass spectrometer could macrofvolucion on the fritz. Scientists do not actually troll the literature with a falsifiability detector, knocking out microrvolucion claims right and left. Rather, they consider their instruments, other possible explanations, alternative data sets, and so microevoolucion. Rendering a theory false is a lot more complicated than Popper imagined—and thus determining what is, in principle, falsifiable is fairly muddled.

The second macroevolucioh is that Amcroevolucion fails mircoevolucion demarcate in the right place. Creationism, for example, makes a series of falsifiable claims about radioactive dating, rates of erosion, and so on, while the more “historical” sciences, like geology and astronomy, pose theories that are more explanatory narratives than up-or-down and therefore falsifiable protocol statements of empirical bullet points. Any criterion had better at least replicate our common-sense notion of “science,” and so far no clear criterion has been able to do so.

No wonder most philosophers have given up on the task.

As the prominent philosopher of science Larry Laudan put it 30 years ago: On the other hand, “emotive work” is pretty interesting from a historical perspective. Scientists consider a great many doctrines to be wrong, even wrongheaded, but not all of them get labeled “pseudoscience. It is a term of abuse that is deployed by some members of a scientific community against individuals they consider threatening.

By tracking under which conditions scientists denigrate others as “pseudoscientists,” we can actually learn how scientists define healthy science at a particular moment.

Instead of attempting to find a one-size-fits-all demarcation criterion, we should think about pseudoscience historically. This helps us understand how science functioned in the past as well as in the present. Over the past several years, I’ve undertaken to do just that, in studying Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky is no longer a household name—very few people under 50 have heard of him—but from to he dominated debates about demarcation.


At issue were his catastrophist theories, first promulgated in his blockbuster Worlds in Collision published by Macmillan, then the most respected publisher of scientific books in the United Statesand later extended and elaborated in a half-dozen further volumes. Velikovsky had a big idea. When he read ancient myths and legends from around the world—especially the Hebrew Bible and other texts from the ancient Near East—he came across similar images: What if these were not just metaphors or hallucinations, but actual eyewitness observations?

What if they described not different disasters, but one single global catastrophe? Velikovsky claimed that by properly correlating and interpreting these texts, one could deduce the outlines of a series of celestial catastrophes, beginning around BC.

In brief, according to Velikovsky, a comet was ejected from Jupiter and became gravitationally and electromagnetically trapped by Earth, wreaking enormous trauma on our planet. After breaking free and struggling with a displaced Mars, the comet settled into an orbit around our Sun. We now call this destructive comet Venus.

Velikovsky’s theory unified an idiosyncratic version of ancient history with a new account of the solar system; it also contravened every accepted premise of geology, paleontology, and celestial mechanics.

Картинки: Microevolución que es

The fate of Velikovsky’s theory is instructive for two principal reasons. First, Worlds in Collision was, so to speak, “born pseudoscientific.

Not so with Velikovsky. Although he was trained as a medical doctor and psychoanalyst, he was not a member of any of the communities with which his book engaged. His theories were not discussed dispassionately and then set aside; they were vehemently attacked even before the book appeared the advance publicity set certain people offthe publisher was threatened with jicroevolucion boycott, and for decades he remained a prime target for self-appointed mcroevolucion, including the distinguished astronomers Harlow Shapley and Carl Sagan.

The emergence of this new method of policing pseudoscience says a lot about the organization of science during the cold war. In the geopolitical clash between the United States and the Soviet Union, science and technology assumed a central place mocroevolucion of nuclear weapons, micreovolucion Sputnik.

As a result, science was better financed, more visible, and more prestigious than ever, but also laden with newfound anxieties about oversight and integrity. A second reason to focus on Velikovsky is the nature of the evidence. Most fringe doctrines do not survive their creators; with their deaths comes a cleaning of the attic and a trip to the dump. Velikovsky had lived in Princeton, N. I went to take a look, the name striking a chord from my youthful reading of UFO lore and other nerdy arcana.

His papers are among the most comprehensive personal archives I have ever seen, spanning 65 linear feet of material: Here we can trace the microdynamics of a demonized theory from birth, charting its rise in popularity and eventually macroeovlucion fairly sudden senescence after Velikovsky’s death.