MEC proíbe a leitura do Origem das Espécies de Darwin: criacionismo!

domingo, dezembro 29, 2013

Was Darwin a Creationist?
Chris Cosans

From: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 
Volume 48, Number 3, Summer 2005 
pp. 362-371 | 10.1353/pbm.2005.0071

Abstract

Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/v048/48.3cosans.pdf

+++++

NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:

O MEC proibiu o ensino do criacionismo nas escolas públicas e privadas. Por tabela, proibiu a leitura do livro A Origem das Espécies pelo fato de Darwin esposar o criacionismo...

Randy Schekman, prêmio Nobel em Medicina 2013 boicota a Nature, Cell e Science: distorcem processos científicos

quarta-feira, dezembro 11, 2013

Quem denuncia a distorção de processos científicos na Nature (fundada especialmente para defender as especulações transformistas de Darwin), Cell e Science, não é um qualquer, mas alguém laureado com o Prêmio Nobel.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

Imagine o desconforto que isso causou na Nomenklatura científica tendo publicações científicas de renome sendo denunciadas de práticas ilícitas! Queria ver a cara de alguns na Galera de meninos e meninas de Darwin - a Nature, a Bíblia dos darwinistas, prática pseudociência!!!

Nossos ancestrais: Chimp Ma e Pork Pa

terça-feira, dezembro 10, 2013


Tese defendida por Eugene McCarthy, professor da Universidade da Geórgia, detentor de um pós-doutorado na área e considerado uma autoridade na "hibridização" de animais.

+++++

Fonte: Terra

+++++

SEM COMENTÁRIOS CAUSTICANTES DESTE BLOGGER!

Um só: nem falso é!

Pobre ciência!!!


O fato, Fato, FATO da evolução humana – os cientistas estão mais perdidos do que cego em tiroteio!!!

segunda-feira, dezembro 09, 2013

Não fiquei alheio às notícias sobre a leitura do DNA de humano primitivo de 400.000 anos encontrado em Atapuerca, Espanha:



Cientistas leem o mais antigo DNA de humano primitivo





Razão do meu silêncio? É que há tanta confusão, controvérsia e polêmica entre os maiores especialistas de evolução humana diante das evidências encontradas e interpretações dadas que eu me perguntei se valeria a pena considerar o que foi alardeado pela Grande Mídia.

Desta vez foi muito, mas muito diferente. Por que? Porque foi publicado um artigo na Nature, a publicação científica fundada por Thomas Huxley et al para defender e promover as ideias evolucionárias de Darwin, com esta chamada “Hominin DNA baffles experts” [DNA de hominídeo confunde os especialistas]. É que as peças do quebra-cabeça da evolução humana estão caindo em lugares onde não deveriam cair, contrariando expectativas teóricas. Não seriam expectativas ideológicas???

E o que era fato, Fato, FATO da evolução humana diante das evidências encontradas se torna um mistério “Another ancient genome, another mystery” [Outro genoma antigo, outro mistério]. E pensar que tem darwinista ortodoxo, fundamentalista, xiita, pós-moderno, chique e perfumado a la Dawkins, como Pazza e Tessler que têm a evolução humana como sendo um fato científico tão bem estabelecido quanto à lei da gravidade, que a Terra é redonda e gira em torno do Sol. NADA MAIS FALSO! Ainda continua Mysterium tremendum. Coisa que este blogger vem dizendo há anos! Desde 1998...



O interessante e inesperado nesta pesquisa de DNA retirado de fêmur de 400.000 anos encontrado em Sima de los Huesos, Atapuerca, na Espanha, é a relação desse hominídeo e os denisovanos que, sabe-se, viveram muito mais recente na Sibéria. 

Pela teoria, os ancestrais europeus deveriam ser mais proximamente geneticamente relacionados com os Neanderthais do que com os denisovanos. Foi isso que deixou os pesquisadores “confundidos”. Chris Stringer disse “não é o que eu esperaria [encontrar].” Svante Pääbo, um dos maiores especialistas nesta área, disse “Isso realmente levanta mais perguntas do que respostas.” Digno de nota é a sugestão no artigo de como explicar a evidência que contraria o esperado pela teoria, “pesquisadores interessados na evolução humana estão se esforçando para explicar o elo surpreendente, e todo mundo parece ter suas ideias.”

O que a maior parte da Nomenklatura científica e a Galera dos meninos e meninas de Darwin querem é esperança, mas diante das evidências, os especialistas ofereceram somente perplexidade: 

Clive Finlayson, arqueólogo do Museu de Gibraltar Museum, considera o mais recente artigo como sendo “moderado e renovador”. Ele disse que as muitas ideias [SIC1] sobre evolução humana têm sido derivadas de amostras limitadas de fósseis e de ideias preconcebidas [SIC 2]. Neste caso, ele afirmou “A genética, para mim, não mente”.

Até Pääbo, um dos maiores especialistas nesta área, admite que ficou surpreso com a última descoberta de sua equipe: “A minha esperança, é claro, é que eventualmente nós não tragamos confusão, mas clareza para este mundo”.

Outras publicações também mostraram terem sido surpreendidas com a descoberta:

National Geographic reportou que isso “embaralha” o quadro da origem humana. 

Live Science reportou sobre um “braço misterioso da humanidade.”

Science Now traz Pääbo dizendo que eles pensavam que este genoma seria encontrado na China e não na Europa. Outro paleoantropólogo disse “Isso é muito mais complex do que nós pensávamos.” Vários “especialistas” propõem “cenários” para responder esse enigma, “O que o DNA de denisovano está fazendo em um proto-neanderthal a 7.500 kilômetros da Sibéria?” 

A BBC até brincou: da Sibéria para a Ibéria? 

A história fica complicada com os diversos grupos incompatíveis cruzando entre si, mas perdendo o DNA que eles ganharam.

O artigo deixou alguns pesquisadores bem frustrados, pois os autores “não chegaram a nenhuma conclusão... Isso não é um grande avanço, deixando todas as hipóteses no ar”, resmungou Emiliano Bruner, do Centro Nacional Espanhol de Pesquisa para Evolução Humana em Burgos.

Ian Tattersal disse, curiosamente: “Tudo o que eu posso dizer é que isso fica cada vez muito mais misterioso.”

Science Daily reportou que parece similar aos primitivos primatas e “Lucy”, mas não com os primatas vivos: “Primatas atuais têm suas histórias evolucionárias longas e independentes, e as suas anatomias modernas não devem ser pressupostas como representando a condição ancestral de nossa linhagem humana”, disse William Jungers, da Escola de Medicina Stony Brook. 

PhysOrg reportou que esta espécie (foi chamada de “Homem do Milênio”) se mostrou ser “menos parecida com chimpanzé do que foi pensado.” Ele parece estar descrevendo um arbusto evolucionário e não uma árvore. Então, o que do fato, Fato, FATO da evolução humana pode ser deduzida dos fósseis? Como os cientistas sabem que esses galhos não foram galhos de primatas que simplesmente se extinguiram, e nada tinham a ver com a origem humana?

+++++

NOTA CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:

É bom ser vindicado pelas evidências. Muito bom mesmo é ser vindicado pelos evolucionistas HONESTOS! Neste blog sempre mostramos ceticismo saudável e localizado sobre o fato, Fato, FATO da evolução humana alardeado como fato científico assim como a lei da gravidade, como a Terra é redonda e gira em torno do Sol. NADA MAIS FALSO!!!

O nome disso é DESONESTIDADE ACADÊMICA, pois a teoria da evolução de Darwin através da seleção natural e n mecanismos evolucionários (de A a Z, vai que um falhe...) não é corroborada no contexto de justificação teórica.

Por que nossos alunos do ensino médio não podem ficar sabendo que o fato, Fato, FATO da evolução não é assim uma Brastemp de aceitação entre os cientistas evolucionistas COMPETENTES e HONESTOS???

Fui, nem sei por que, rindo igual ao Gato de Cheshire!!!



ADENDA 10/12/2013

Ponto de vista de John Hawks sobre esta questão polêmica e controversa:
The Denisova-Sima de los Huesos connection

P.S.: Este cientista evolucionista não abre espaço para comentários em seu blog. Foi nele, Galera de meninos e meninas de Darwin e alguns cientistas da Nomenklatura científica, que me inspirei. Capice?




Porque a Nomenklatura cientifica tupiniquim é academicamente desonesta quando a questão é Darwin

sábado, dezembro 07, 2013

Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory

22 MAY 1995

Darwinism is a theory of evolution based upon inherited variations in organisms and natural selection of fitter variants to produce species adapted to their habitats. Twentieth-century biology added a theory of inheritance, the science of genetics, to give Neo-Darwinism. In the past 20 years the techniques of genetics and molecular biology have converged to provide both a remarkably detailed understanding of the genes that define the molecular composition of any organism and the ability to transfer genes from one species to another.

There is no doubt about the importance of the insights that have resulted from this increased genetic and molecular focus. The problem is that the claims made for these revelations are frequently so misleading and distorted that the whole field becomes tarnished by exaggeration and real scientific problems are obscured. Biology then suffers. A widely quoted example with which many biologists agree is the description by Delisi (American Scientist) of what the human genome project will reveal about human development. "This collection of chromosomes in the fertilised egg constitutes the complete set of instructions for development, determining the timing and details of the formation of the heart, the central nervous system, the immune system, and every other organ and tissue required for life."

A colleague in the States who is a firm believer in the importance of genes in development and evolution says he uses the Delisi quotation in his developmental biology class to show the stupidity of the reductionist paradigm. So biology is a broad church that contains many points of view. But the most prominent public voices present the reductionist position. Richard Dawkins, a fervent adherent of extreme genetic reductionism, describes in The Blind Watchmaker a willow tree releasing seeds within which is the "DNA whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees". For him the genes define the essence of life and the organism is just a survival machine built by genes for their own perpetuation. Steve Jones regards this as "the best general book about evolution since the second world war". And Lewis Wolpert delivers the same message as Dawkins: "DNA provides the programme which controls development of the embryo and brings about epigenesis" (The Triumph of the Embryo).

What is wrong with these statements is that they define scientific positions that need to be backed up by models that demonstrate precisely how a knowledge of genes in the developing organism will lead to an understanding of the three-dimensional form of the human heart or limb or eye, the arrangement of leaves on a plant and the organs of the flower, or the wings of a fruit fly. But this is not provided. The discussion always stops at the spatial patterns of gene products in developing organisms, if indeed it gets even that far. The crucial step of generating the actual three-dimensional structures that characterise the distinctive morphology of species is left unexplained.

To understand why organisms look the way they do we need models that involve physical forces as well as biological variables, organised to produce organisms with specific morphologies, as described in my book, How the Leopard Changed its Spots. To say there is a program in DNA that constructs the organism is to use a misleading shorthand or to fail to understand the problem. It is like saying that all you need to know to understand high-temperature superconductors is what they are made of and where the atoms are relative to one another. Try that on a physicist. And organisms are at least as complex as superconductors. Yet we are constantly being told that molecular analysis will reveal all. The rhetoric here frequently overwhelms the science, which is doubly unfortunate: the science is sufficiently exciting in its own right and does not need the hyperbole, while the problems it cannot address are being neglected.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the claim that Neo-Darwinism explains evolution. Evolution is about the origin of species, the emergence of new types of organism characterised by distinctive morphologies and behaviours. This requires a theory of organisms as life-cycles, including morphogenesis (how organisms of specific form are generated) and of their interactions with one another and the physical environment in producing communities and ecosystems. But far from concentrating on the development of theories of organisms and ecosystems, Neo-Darwinism concentrates on genes as the fundamental entities in biology.

This cannot succeed because it leaves out too much. Organisms are large-scale physical systems that grow and develop, run, fly, produce leaves and flowers, and generate patterns of relationships with each other. Some of them even love and write poetry. Genes do none of these things, and neither do molecules.

Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive changes in organisms). It is partial in two senses. First, Neo-Darwinism assumes random genetic variation followed by selection, whereas there is now evidence for a role of directed mutation in adaptive response. That is, genes can evidently respond to environmental circumstances by non-random, adaptive mutation. And second, many of the adaptive "explanations" advanced for biological characteristics simply cannot be taken as serious science. In 1979, Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin published a classic paper that ridiculed much of the adaptationist literature as constituting a "panglossian paradigm", Just So Stories of such dubious scientific value that they discredit the subject. For a few years after that, adaptationists watched their p's and q's more closely. However, the salutary influence of that paper has unfortunately diminished to the point where Just So Stories are again proliferating wildly. A recent example is why the hour-glass shape in women is an adaptive trait, determined by genes. Men select women with large hips and breasts because these are indicators of reproductive potential, or at least men think they are. Women who satisfy these criteria but do not have a small waist are simply fat, which, we are told, is not a good indicator of reproductive potential. Hence the selection of the hour-glass shape. You might think I overheard this in a pub, but it is in fact advanced as a serious proposition by Matt Ridley in The Red Queen following the original proposal by Low, Alexander, and Noonan in Ethology and Sociobiology. If this is science then Rudyard Kipling was a great scientist.

Adaptation is an important problem, but it is not the same as evolution. Still less is it the same as macroevolution, which is about large-scale evolutionary change: the emergence of algae, mosses, ferns, grasses, flowers, trees; of protozoa, sea urchins, octopus, fish, amphibia, birds, mammals. For these qualitative changes, the stuff of evolution, there is no adequate theory. A primary reason for this absence is the narrative style that has been adopted within biology since Darwin's re-description of the subject as an historical science. Species have come to be seen as individuals, the results of historical contingencies, so that the morphological relationships between species have become unintelligible because they are accidental, not necessary. And yet there is plenty of evidence for a deep level of structural order that underlies the taxonomic regularity of the biological realm, the systematic similarities and differences of species. This is the level of structural constraint that Gould and Lewontin were reminding us of: biological form cannot be explained away in functional (adaptational) terms, nor is any form possible. There is a long tradition in biology of seeking to understand this intrinsic order in terms of a theory of biological form and transformation that is now re-emerging from more sophisticated non-linear dynamic modelling of morphogenesis and a deeper understanding of the causal mechanisms involved.

It is clear biology needs a theory of organisms as self-organising systems that generate emergent order if evolution is to be understood. This is now a very real and exciting possibility, but it is an interdisciplinary task that requires mathematical, physical, and biological input. It simply cannot come from the study of genes and molecules alone, useful as this is.

There is another dimension of Neo-Darwinism that is also problematic. The analytical power of molecular genetics has resulted in a new expansion of Neo-Darwinism with a strongly applied, technological dimension. One manifestation of this is the project to identify every human gene, coordinated by the international Human Genome Organisation (HUGO), with associated squabbling over patent rights on potentially lucrative applications in the fields of medicine and designer gene engineering. The French geneticist Daniel Cohen has led the movement to have this information recognised by the United Nations as the property of humanity to use freely for any appropriate purpose. But 17 companies are now in a position to patent many of the 100,000 genes of the human body so that, unless patent rights are paid for use, they can withhold the information that would otherwise be valuable for medical research.

There are immense social and ethical issues involved. It is obvious extreme caution is required because of our ignorance of the genetic, biological, and ecological consequences of gene manipulation. Any applications should be governed by principles such as no use of the technology unless there is a clearly demonstrated need, extensive testing of safety before any application, and establishment of rigorous safety protocols on international movements of transgenics and their use in the field. There is a call for a moratorium on the large-scale release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment until such safety protocols have been put in place. Without this, we shall find that Neo-Darwinism is not only prone to misleading rhetoric and inadequate science, but its applications may result in ecologically dangerous agricultural applications.

SOURCE/FONTE: TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION

+++++

NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:

A desonestidade acadêmica de muitos cientistas evolucionistas denunciada por este blogger desde 1998, se dá justamente no fato, Fato, FATO que esses cientistas têm acesso à literatura especializada, sabem das tremendas dificuldades fundamentais no contexto de justificação teórica e, DESONESTAMENTE afirmam que o fato, Fato, FATO da evolução é um fato científico estabelecido assim como a lei da gravidade, que a Terra é redonda e gira em torno do Sol. Nada mais falso. 

São tão academicamente desonestos a ponto de se recusarem debater publicamente as razões por que a teoria da evolução de Darwin através da seleção natural e n mecanismos evolucionários (de A a Z, vai que uma falhe...) ruiu fragorosamente. Muito mais academicamente desonestos porque sabem que a Síntese Evolutiva Moderna foi declarada uma teoria científica morta em 1980 por ninguém nada menos do que Stephen Jay Gould, mas que teima em posar como ortodoxia científica somente nos livros didáticos. O nome disso é 171 acadêmico, e eles sabem disso esses desonestos!

Nenhum deles me processa por danos morais e materiais. Por quê? Porque eles sabem que Darwin vai junto comigo para os bancos dos réus!

ACADÊMICOS DESONESTOS!!! Este blogger mata a cobra e mostra o pau: artigo de uma publicação respeitada. 

Gene egoísta: mais uma especulação darwinista jogada na lata de lixo da História da Ciência

sexta-feira, dezembro 06, 2013

Die, selfish gene, die

The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong

by David Dobbs



Grasshopper (Acrididae), Barbilla National Park, Costa Rica. Photo by Piotr Naskrecki/Minden Pictures/Corbis

A couple of years ago, at a massive conference of neuroscientists — 35,000 attendees, scores of sessions going at any given time — I wandered into a talk that I thought would be about consciousness but proved (wrong room) to be about grasshoppers and locusts. At the front of the room, a bug-obsessed neuroscientist named Steve Rogers was describing these two creatures — one elegant, modest, and well-mannered, the other a soccer hooligan.

The grasshopper, he noted, sports long legs and wings, walks low and slow, and dines discreetly in solitude. The locust scurries hurriedly and hoggishly on short, crooked legs and joins hungrily with others to form swarms that darken the sky and descend to chew the farmer’s fields bare.

Related, yes, just as grasshoppers and crickets are. But even someone as insect-ignorant as I could see that the hopper and the locust were wildly different animals — different species, doubtless, possibly different genera. So I was quite amazed when Rogers told us that grasshopper and locust are in fact the same species, even the same animal, and that, as Jekyll is Hyde, one can morph into the other at alarmingly short notice.

Not all grasshopper species, he explained (there are some 11,000), possess this morphing power; some always remain grasshoppers. But every locust was, and technically still is, a grasshopper — not a different species or subspecies, but a sort of hopper gone mad. If faced with clues that food might be scarce, such as hunger or crowding, certain grasshopper species can transform within days or even hours from their solitudinous hopper states to become part of a maniacally social locust scourge. They can also return quickly to their original form.

In the most infamous species, Schistocerca gregaria, the desert locust of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, these phase changes (as this morphing process is called) occur when crowding spurs a temporary spike in serotonin levels, which causes changes in gene expression so widespread and powerful they alter not just the hopper’s behaviour but its appearance and form. Legs and wings shrink. Subtle camo colouring turns conspicuously garish. The brain grows to manage the animal’s newly complicated social world, which includes the fact that, if a locust moves too slowly amid its million cousins, the cousins directly behind might eat it.

How does this happen? Does something happen to their genes? Yes, but — and here was the point of Rogers’s talk — their genes don’t actually change. That is, they don’t mutate or in any way alter the genetic sequence or DNA. Nothing gets rewritten. Instead, this bug’s DNA — the genetic book with millions of letters that form the instructions for building and operating a grasshopper — gets reread so that the very same book becomes the instructions for operating a locust. Even as one animal becomes the other, as Jekyll becomes Hyde, its genome stays unchanged. Same genome, same individual, but, I think we can all agree, quite a different beast.

Why?

Transforming the hopper is gene expression — a change in how the hopper’s genes are ‘expressed’, or read out. Gene expression is what makes a gene meaningful, and it’s vital for distinguishing one species from another. We humans, for instance, share more than half our genomes with flatworms; about 60 per cent with fruit flies and chickens; 80 per cent with cows; and 99 per cent with chimps. Those genetic distinctions aren’t enough to create all our differences from those animals — what biologists call our particular phenotype, which is essentially the recognisable thing a genotype builds. This means that we are human, rather than wormlike, flylike, chickenlike, feline, bovine, or excessively simian, less because we carry different genes from those other species than because our cells read differently our remarkably similar genomes as we develop from zygote to adult. The writing varies — but hardly as much as the reading.

This raises a question: if merely reading a genome differently can change organisms so wildly, why bother rewriting the genome to evolve? How vital, really, are actual changes in the genetic code? Do we even need DNA changes to adapt to new environments? Is the importance of the gene as the driver of evolution being overplayed?

You’ve probably noticed that these questions are not gracing the cover of Time or haunting Oprah, Letterman, or even TED talks. Yet for more than two decades they have been stirring a heated argument among geneticists and evolutionary theorists. As evidence of the power of rapid gene expression mounts, these questions might (or might not, for pesky reasons we’ll get to) begin to change not only mainstream evolutionary theory but our more everyday understanding of evolution.

Twenty years ago, phase changes such as those that turn grasshopper to locust were relatively unknown, and, outside of botany anyway, rarely viewed as changes in gene expression. Now, notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a wasp researcher at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Costa Rica, sharp phenotype changes due to gene expression are ‘everywhere’. They show up in gene-expression studies of plants, microbes, fish, wasps, bees, birds, and even people. The genome is continually surprising biologists with how fast and fluidly it can change gene expression — and thus phenotype.

These discoveries closely follow the recognition, during the 1980s, that gene-expression changes during very early development — such as in embryos or sprouting plant seeds — help to create differences between species. At around the same time, genome sequencing began to reveal the startling overlaps mentioned above between the genomes of wildly different creatures. (To repeat: you are 80 per cent cow.)

...

READ MORE HERE/LEIA MAIS AQUI: AEON

+++++

EXCERPT/EXCERTO:


"Yet West-Eberhard understands why many biologists stick to the gene-centric model. ‘It makes it easier to explain evolution,’ she says. ‘I’ve seen people who work in gene expression who understand all of this. But when they get asked about evolution, they go straight to Mendel. Because people understand it more easily.’ It’s easy to see why: even though life is a zillion bits of biology repeatedly rearranging themselves in a webwork of constantly modulated feedback loops, the selfish-gene model offers a step-by-step account as neat as a three-step flow chart. Gene, trait, phenotype, done.

"In other words, the gene-centric model survives because simplicity is a hugely advantageous trait for an idea to possess. People will select a simple idea over a complex idea almost every time. This holds especially in a hostile environment, like, say, a sceptical crowd."


+++++
NOTA CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:

Queria ver a cara de alguns cientistas evolucionistas da Nomenklatura científica internacional e tupiniquim e da Galera dos meninos e meninas de Dawkins que fizeram da especulação transformista genecentrista egoísta como um dos mecanismos evolucionários explicando a origem, diversidade e complexidade de todas as formas biológicas! 

Alô meu bom amigo Charbel Niño El-Hani. Lembra que você me disse lá na Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, campus São Paulo, SP, que eu tinha embarcado numa canoa furado por defender e propor a teoria do Design Inteligente? Lembra de minha resposta? Que eu tinha deixado o pangaré de Darwin e apostado todas as minhas fichas no cavalo do Design Inteligente? Naquela ocasião a especulação transformista de Richard Dawkins - o GENE EGOÍSTA era aceito e propalado como ciência.

Fui, cada vez mais convencido, que a teoria da evolução de Darwin através da seleção natural e n mecanismos evolucionários (de A a Z, vai que um falhe...) está mais furada do queijo suíço!