Pope about evolution / Papa despre evolutie

Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:17PM EDT

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.

The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.

Those arguments, proposed mostly by conservative Protestants and derided by scientists, have stoked recurring battles over the teaching of evolution in the United States. Some European Christians and Turkish Muslims have recently echoed these views.

"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.

"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.

"The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost," he said, adding that the evolution debate was actually about "the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going."

NOT BY FAITH ALONE

Speculation about Benedict's views on evolution have been rife ever since a former student and close advisor, Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, published an article in 2005 that seemed to align the Church with the "intelligent design" view.

"Intelligent design" (ID) argues that some forms of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, as Charles Darwin proposed in his 1859 book "The Origin of Species." It says a higher intelligence must have done this but does not name it as God.

Scientists denounce this as a disguised form of creationism, the view that God created the world just as the Bible says. U.S. courts have ruled both creationism and ID are religious views that cannot be taught in public school science classes there.

In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.

"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture," he remarked during the discussion held at the papal summer palace in Castel Gandolfo outside Rome.

He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.

"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.

AGAINST ATHEISM

Schoenborn, who published his own book on evolution last month, has said he and the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin's theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.

That is a philosophical or ideological conclusion not supported by facts, they say, because science cannot prove who or what originally created the universe and life in it.

"Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that 'nature' or 'evolution' has done this or that," Benedict said in the book which included lectures from theologian Schoenborn, two philosophers and a chemistry professor.

"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.

Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.

"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.

"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.

Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

Simulation of evolution / Simularea evolutiei

Despite the plethora of modern genetic tools, something that is little changed since Darwin's time is our reliance on evolutionary outcomes to unravel the process of evolution. The lack of evolutionary intermediates leaves the door ajar for the proponents of intelligent design. But a new technique could help fill the gaps. It involves the construction of evolutionary intermediates in the lab, and the search for viable paths between them. The resulting 'fitness landscapes' map viable routes between accessible evolutionary paths.

There are some bacteria that have a version of a particular enzyme that makes them 100,000 times more resistant to certain antibiotics (like penicillin). We know that there are five differences that separate this version of the enzyme from the basic version, and we know what those mutations are. In theory, if the mutations happened one at a time, there are 120 possible ways that the enzyme could go from the original form to the resistant form. (For example, mutation 1 could have happened first, mutation 2 second, mutation 3 third, mutation 4 fourth, and mutation 5 fifth, or mutation 2 could have happened first, mutation 1 second, mutation 3 third . . . or mutation three could have happened first . . . and so on until all the possibilities are exhausted. )

Scientists then were able to construct possible intermediate forms of the enzyme - varieties that contained some, but not all 5, of the mutations, and test their resistance to the antibiotic. What they found was that 12 of the 120 possible paths from the original form to the new form increased resistance with every additional mutation. That's pretty cool - it shows that not only could natural selection drive the changes in this enzyme, but also that there are 12 different ways it could have happened.

The current studies show mutation-by-mutation paths, with selective values for each step, in the development of some new traits. (Like it or not, a 100,000-fold improvement in antibiotic resistance is a new trait.) Some of the other studies cited in the paper look at even more things, like the possible effects of taking paths that are longer than the shortest possible paths investigated in the bacterial resisitance study, by looking at things like the effect of a muation that is gained then lost along the way.

*

In ciuda multitudinii de instrumente genetice avute la indemana, exista ceva ce nu s-a schimbat de pe vremea lui Darwin, si anume dependenta totala de rezultatele evolutiei, in demersul de a elucida mecanismele evolutiei. Lipsa stadiilor intermediare lasa usa deschisa adeptilor Intelligent Design. Insa o noua tehnica ar putea suplini lipsa. Aceasta implica construirea de stadii intermediare in laborator, precum si cautarea de legaturi viabile intre aceastea, permitand trasarea de traiectorii evolutive viabile.

Exista anumite bacterii care poseda o versiune a unei enzime care le confera o rezistanta de 100.000 de ori mai mare fata de anumite antibiotice (ca penicilina). Se stie ca exista 5 diferente care separa aceste varietati ale enzimei de enzima clasica, si se stie care sunt cele 5 mutatii care produc aceste modificari. Teoretic, daca mutatiile nu s-au produs simultan, atunci exista 120 de cai posibile prin care enzima originala se poate transforma in varianta rezistenta. (De exemplu, mutatia I s-a produs prima, apoi mutatia II a 2-a, apoi a III-a, apoi a IV-a si apoi a V-a; sau mutatia II putea fi prima, mutatia I a 2-a, apoi a III-a, si asa mai departe pana cand toate posibilitatile se vor fi epuizat.)

Astfel, oamenii de stiinta au reusit sa construiasca forme intermediare ale enzimei, forme care contineau numai cateva din cele 5 mutatii, iar apoi sa le verifice rezistenta fata de antibiotic. Au descoperit ca 12 din cele 120 de traiectorii evolutive posibile, de la varianta originala la cea rezistenta a enzimei, confereau rezistenta din ce in ce mai crescuta fata de antibiotic, odata cu fiecare mutatie succesiva. Acest lucru nu numai ca demonstreaza implicarea selectiei naturale in transformarea enzimei, ci si faptul ca sunt 12 traiectorii diferite prin care acest lucru se putea produce.

Studiile arata pas cu pas, mutatie cu mutatie traiectoriile urmate, mentionand valoarea selectiva a fiecarui pas. Alte studii privesc posibilele efecte ale luarii in calcul a unor traiectorii evolutive mai lungi decat cele mai scurte cai posibile, asa cum au fost ele cercetate in studiul initial. Acest lucru s-a facut luaind in considerare, printre altele, efectul datorat dobandirii unei mutatii, si pierderii ei ulterioare.

Evolutia telescopica / Telescopic evolution

Umwelt

Umwelt is a century-old concept introduced to ethology, the study of animal behavior, by Jakob von Uexküll. It's the recognition that every animal exists in a unique perceptual universe that's closed to human beings other than through inference: Much of a bee's world is ultraviolet; a dog's nose does a lot of what we use our eyes to accomplish. Then there are the electric fish which perceive their world through a sense we lack entirely. If every entity has it's own umwelt, I ask myself what is the umwelt of an atom, let's say? It might be possible that the atom does not perceive the world we call physical at all. What about the umwelt of the Internet... What is it? Maybe us... our mind???...

*

Umwelt este un concept introdus in etologie acum un secol de catre Jakob von Uexcull. Este recunoasterea faptului ca fiecare animal exista intr-un univers perceptual specific care este inaccesibil omului: cea mai mare parte a lumii unei albine este ultravioleta; pentru un caine nasul indeplineste un rol la fel de important ca pentru noi ochii. Pestele electric percepe lumea printr-un simt care noua ne lipseste cu desavarsire. Daca orice entitate are umwelt-ul sau propriu, nu pot sa nu ma intreb oare care este Umwelt-ul unui atom, sa zicem? S-ar putea ca un atom sa nu perceapa deloc lumea pe care noi o numim fizica. Dar umwelt-ul Internetului (considerat ca o entitate) oare care este? Poate noi... mintea noastra???...

Domnului Alexandru Mironov

Nu vreau sa imputez cu orice pret nimanui nimic, insa am citit in ultimul numar al revistei “Stiinta si Tehnica” un lucru care m-a uimit: “…reala societate civila (caci nu alde Liiceanu sau Patapievici o reprezinta, ei nefiind decat o coloana a V-a politica, a cine stie carei miscari fundamentaliste occidentale!)”. Articolul cu pricina ii apartine d-lui Alexandru Mironov. Stau si ma intreb oare ce l-a determinat pe d-ul Mironov sa catalogheze astfel niste personalitati emblematice ale vietii noastre culturale si literare? Chiar daca d-ul Patapievici (pe care personal il apreciez foarte mult si care mentionez ca este de formatie si fizician) a fost numit de catre Traian Basescu in fruntea ICR, ma indoiesc ca ar fi afiliat la cine stie ce “miscare fundamentalista straina”, ca sa nu folosesc cuvantul de proasta notorietate “agenturi”. Trag nadejdea ca in paginile revistei "Stiinta si tehnica" nu-si au loc dispute politice.

Deforestation / Despaduririle

60% din totalul defrisarilor care au loc la nivel mondial se datoreaza agriculturii de subzistenta. Sunt ca niste cicatrici care se vad chiar si din spatiu. Daca vrem sa ne pastram padurile, va trebui sa rezolvam problema saraciei care determina populatia din tarile sarace sa defriseze suprafete intinse de padure tropicala pentru a practica agricultura si a-si asigura subzistenta... sau pur si simplu pentru profit. Padurile tropicale constituie cea mai importanta sursa de biodiversitate. Distrugerea lor atrage dupa sine pierderi incomensurabile care pericliteaza evolutia vietii pe Terra si insasi supravietuirea speciei umane si expansiunea acesteia in spatiu. Cucerirea spatiului va constitui, in ultima instanta, nu numai meritul inteligentei umane, ci al intregii biosfere.
*
60% of the world deforestation is due to subsistence agriculture. They are like scars which can be seen even from space. If we want to keep out forests, we would have to fix the problem of poverty first, which makes the population from poor countries to cut large areas of tropical forest for agriculture... or maybe only for profit. The tropical forests are the most important source of biodiversity. Their destruction will cause incommensurable losses which endangers the evolution of life on Earth, the survival of human specie itself and its expansion beyond Earth, in space. The conquest of space will be the merit not only of the human intelligence alone, but of the intelligence of the entire biosphere and Earth.

Schimbarile climatice. Cat costa adaptarea?

Numarul din martie al revistei STIINTA SI TEHNICA rezerva un spatiu larg problemelor legate de schimbarile climatice.
In opinia mea, singurul lucru care va salva umanitatea de la dezastrul ecologic este fuziunea la rece (vezi mai jos). Insa pana va fi pusa la punct, va mai dura inca cateva zeci de ani. S-ar putea sa fie prea tarziu. Pana atunci singurul lucru care ar putea limita impactul gazelor cu efect de sera ar fi introducerea in pretul fiecarui produs a "cotei de carbon" aferenta procesului de fabricatie, adica cantitatea de carbon emisa in fabricarea produsului respectiv, transformata in bani. Aceasta cota ar trebui raportata la suma de 18 catralioane de dolari necesari tranzitiei la o economie care sa nu genereze gaze cu efect de sera. Paleontologia ne arata ca in momentele de cotitura, cand au loc schimbari profunde, si evolutia isi grabeste pasul. Oare sub ce forma se va adapta umanitatea la schimbarile care in mod sigur vor avea loc?

In 'Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, the War Against Cold Fusion,' viewers investigate the idea of cold fusion. If viable, cold fusion offers the possibility of limitless cheap energy. Some have suggested that the quashing of cold fusion projects in the late '80s was due to certain agencies not wishing to undermine the position of U.S. energy corporations. from http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:243931

Originea si evolutia obiceiului de a incondeia oua de Paste

Izvoare istorice si arheologice sigure atesta, cu multe secole i.H., obiceiul de a se face cadou oua colorate la unele sarbatori sezoniere, in primul rand la Anul Nou: in China, cu ocazia sarbatorii Tsing-ming, care cadea in aprilie, se obisnuia sa se ofere in dar oua colorate; la vechii persi, era obiceiul ca, la sarbatoarea primaverii, oamenii sa-si daruiasca unul altuia oua de diferite culori; la romani, tinerii vopseau ouale in rosu si, pe langa alte cadouri, si le trimiteau reciproc la sarbatoarea lui Ianus; la vechii slavi exista datina ca la sarbatoarea primaverii sa se ofere in dar oua rosii etc.

Oul este, alaturi de lut si aluat, arhetipuri ale genezei. Astfel, chinezii credeau ca cerul impreuna cu pamantul sunt ca un ou de pasare: cerul este invelisul pamantului, precum coaja oului este invelisul galbenusului. La randul lor, vechii persi credeau ca cerul, pamantul, apa si tot ce se gaseste sub cer sunt inchise ca intr-un ou: cerul este deasupra si dedesubtul pamantului, iar pamantul este inauntrul cerului, ca si galbenusul in ou. Ei credeau ca la inceputul lumii se afla numai Dumnezeu, iar peste intregul spatiu al haosului domnea intunericul. La un moment dat a aparut un ou care a fost acoperit cu aripile intunericului si fecundat de catre noapte. Din Oul fecundat au iesit Soarele si Luna care s-au inaltat pe cer. Pamantul fiind mai greu, s-a lasat in jos. Credinte cosmogonice asemanatoare intalnim si la alte popoare ale antichitatii: la fenicieni, din haosul primitiv apare un duh care se divide in cer si pamant, de unde rasar Soarele si Luna; la egipteni creatia lumii incepe cu formarea unui ou pe intinsul apelor. Taranul roman in prima jumatate a secolului XX credea ca "pamantul e in chipul unui ou; fundul oului este pamantul, iar varful e cerul; el sta pe ape".

Imaginea arhetipala care a stat la baza compararii universului cu oul isi are originea in faptul ca acest termen de comparatie este generator de viata. Din el au inmugurit Pamantul, Soarele, Luna, viata. Soarele insusi a fost comparat cu un pui. Lumina zilei si unii zei care simbolizeaza Soarele (la egipteni Ra, Amon-Ra) isi au originea, de asemenea, in ou. Astfel, oul ca simbol al creatiei, al fertilitatii si al Soarelui, astru de care depinde viata pe pamant, a ramas pana spre vremurile noastre simbolul reinvierii naturii, substitut al divinitatii sacrificate violent, prin spargere. Oul este un substitut al divinitatii primordiale, infrumusetat (gatit) prin vopsire si incondeiere in Saptamana Patimilor, jertfit si mancat sacramental in ziua de Paste.

Izvoare istorice si arheologice certe atesta, cu multe secole inainte de Hristos, obiceiul de a se face cadou oua colorate la marile sarbatori sezoniere, in special la Anul Nou: la sarbatorile de primavara, vechii persi isi daruiau oua de diferite culori; tinerii romani isi trimiteau oua vopsite in rosu, impreuna cu alte cadouri, la sarbatoarea zeului Ianus etc. Aparitia frecventa a oului, in special a oului colorat, in ceremoniile antice de innoire a timpului se bazeaza pe conceptiile lor cosmogonice care comparau universul cu oul generator de viata. De pilda, chinezii credeau ca Cerul si Pamantul formeaza un urias ou de pasare: Cerul ar fi invelisul Pamantului, asemanator cojii de ou care inveleste galbenusul.

Treptat, obiceiurile preistorice legate de acest arhetip al genezei, oul, au fost preluate si de crestinism: oul, colorat si impodobit, este simbolul Mantuitorului, care paraseste mormantul si se intoarce la viata, precum puiul de gaina iesit din gaoace. La inceput ouale se vopseau cu plante in galben - culoarea Soarelui pe bolta Cerului, si in rosu - culoarea discului solar la rasarit si apus. Ulterior, ouale au fost decorate cu chipul lui Hristos, cu figuri de ingeri, cu un miel, cu motive astrale, fitomorfe, zoomorfe, antropomorfe. Dupa milenii de evolutie a credintelor si ideilor religioase, romanii inrosesc si incondeiaza ouale primavara, la sarbatoarea centrala a calendarului festiv crestin, Pastele. Inrositul si incondeiatul oualor, mestesuguri populare de un rar rafinament artistic, se imbina cu numeroase credinte si obiceiuri precrestine. Pentru a juca rolul de substitut ritual al personajului sacru, oul este ales la Miezul Paresimilor, ziua de miercuri din mijlocul Postului Mare, este gatit (colorat si incondeiat) in Saptamana Patimilor, pentru a fi ucis, prin lovire violenta in cap (Ciocnitul oualor) si mancat sacramental in ziua de Paste. Prin acest scenariu ritual, cei vechi credeau ca timpul si spatiul inconjurator moare si renaste anual, impreuna cu divinitatea adorata. Bogata terminologie zonala a oualor incondeiate reflecta tehnica incondeiatului (oua inchistate, impistrite, picurate, pictate, impuiate) si instrumentele folosite (oua incondeiate).

Alte denumiri, precum oua necajite si oua muncite, se refera la chinul oualor in timpul complicatului proces de incondeiere: desenarea cu ceara incinsa, si introducerea lor de mai multe ori in apa fiarta. Obiceiurile si credintele legate de cojile acestora pot aduce frumusete si sanatate, belsug si rod bogat, pot sa lege sau sa indeparteze oamenii, sa grabeasca casatoria fetelor, sa inmulteasca vitele etc.

Obiceiurile calendaristice legate de colorarea si incondeierea oualor, folosirea lor in practicile magice menite sa aduca prosperitate turmelor si ogoarelor, fertilitate animalelor, vegetalelor si oamenilor, aruncarea cojilor de oua pe apa pentru a anunta Blajinii de sosirea Pastelui etc, etc. sunt practici precrestine implicate in renovarea timpului si transmise pana spre zilele noastre.

Ion Ghinoiu

Si ei sunt oameni...

Cimpanzei si unelte