Viral Infection In The Eye

Anticorpi.info

Today we talk about evolution and creationism .

The question does not concern us directly, in the sense that everyone is free to believe in one or more gods (as long as you do not feel authorized - for that reason alone - to cut the throat of the next) and make sense of the history of life on Earth .

But when the controversy is treated by a conspiracy, the Pearl is just around the corner, and here we are talking about the site Anticorpi.info and a post titled: "Evolution: Truth or ideology?" .

no doubt that the site manager is a true conspiracy: David Icke on advertising (the mattoide claiming that humanity is controlled by alien lizards in human form) speaks for itself.

So Anticorpi.info takes issue with theories of evolution, those introduced by Darwin, for instance, and basically shared by the entire scientific community.

Let's see what he writes here and there.

In November 1859 it was published "The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. It only appears on the exclusive use of specialists.

(...) Among the great "achievements" of modern thought, it occupies a special place. (...)
Darwinian evolution is one of the pillars of the ideology of progress and modernity in general. Deny it or even criticize it, is to deny a truth as clear as day, and scientist, precludes any possibility of career, life and relegated to the limbo of researchers from the second or third band.

Exaggerated! Charles Darwin he was not a philosopher or a priest, and was certainly not one of those fanatical psychopaths who write theories hallucinating from the comfort of your chair on the house and then make them the subject of books and conferences (like Icke, to name one at random) .
Darwin was a serious scholar who expended tremendous effort in his research, touring around the world to analyze the large and small life forms and to collect Samples for testing (only those who have seen the Darwin Center at the Natural History Museum in London can get an idea of \u200b\u200bthe complexity and majesty of this work).

The result of this work was a scientific theory, based on objective data and logical consequences.
A scientist may also disagree with his conclusions ... provided, however, that are able to propose an alternative theory as valid and logical. Otherwise
is normal, indeed sacred, it kicked ass in the scientific community!

(...) the so-called theory of evolution as opposed to what ordinary people think, is far that a truth well-founded, as it wants to believe, and is far from being demonstrated or proved "scientifically".

not true. First, a scientific theory helps explain a phenomenon and is valid until it is made better.
is not to say that a scientific theory must be demonstrated to be valid: the important thing is that it fails to explain what is observed in agreement with the available data.
an example.
If you see a little lunch 'of people who go to the delicatessen preparing a sandwich and then eats it, the theory is that they were hungry and decided to eat a sandwich.
Non c'è modo di accertare oggettivamente che sia così. Non potremmo escludere, ad esempio, che siano stati tutti ipnotizzati da un lucertolone alieno e costretti a comprare e mangiare un panino che non desideravano affatto.
La prima teoria, però, offre una spiegazione logica e coerente con le nozioni di cui disponiamo.
La seconda è da manicomio.

Qui si vuole soltanto mettere in evidenza il carattere ideologico della questione - evidente per esempio nello insegnamento scolastico - insieme con i tantissimi punti oscuri della teoria darwiniana, che paradossalmente - ma nemmeno tanto - hanno più probabilità di essere riconosciuti dagli stessi ricercatori che dai cosiddetti "divulgatori", che spesso altro non sono se non dei mercenari ideologizzati, al soldo di chi sanno loro.

Mercenari idologizzati al soldo di...? Della CIA? Di Andreotti? Di chi?
Ci piacerebbe proprio saperlo, visto che questa volta non può essere colpa degli ebrei (loro un Dio ce l'hanno e ci credono) né dei Gesuiti (anche per loro Dio non si tocca).
E' forse un complotto social-comunista? Darwin era sul libro di paga dei cinesi?
Il mistero si infittisce.

Ma andiamo per ordine.

Giusto, andiamo per ordine. Una Perla dopo l'altra...

Intanto uno dei principali vanti degli evoluzionisti, namely the fact that this theory has remained virtually unchanged in 150 years, if anything, it shows - in an age like ours, where theories are often short-lived - the ideological rather than scientific.

But who says? If a theory is unchanged, it means that nobody has been able to propose better!

How many centuries it is claimed that the chickens come from eggs? The theory has never changed, yet there seems to be an ideological issue ...

(...) In the land of conquest of modern capitalism, Darwin's theory really seems the triumph of bourgeois ideology adapted to the natural sciences ...

is revealed the mystery! So that rascal Darwin was on the payroll of bourgeois capitalists, but social-communists!
But wait. But the bourgeois capitalists are also those who go to church every Sunday, baptize children and get married on an altar? Still eludes us something ...

(...) The similarities between the evolutionary model and the economic liberals are nothing short of impressive. The struggle for existence between individual animals is nothing if not competition between the various economic homines; the survival of the fittest ...

But then you have the habit of exaggerating! The liberal economic model is as old as the world. If one decides to sell ice cubes in Alaska or motorboat in the Sahara it is clear that fails. The laws of supply and demand, competition, trade has always dominated. Mica
the Egyptians were so fools to go to buy bread from the baker who sold most of worse quality and price.

(...) First, one of the tenets of Darwinian evolution, namely the action of natural selection, seems not to be always reflected in reality, the selection appears to act often more conservative in the sense that not innovative, as it provides theory, facilitating the persistence and continuity of the old characters rather than the emergence of new ones. In fact, the qualitative differences between species are greater nei primi fossili conosciuti che tra le specie attuali, ossia la variabilità è diminuita nel tempo anzichè essere aumentata.

Questa è proprio buona. La vita sulla Terra ha circa 4 miliardi di anni e gli uomini si interessano di studiare l'evoluzione delle forme di vita da pochi secoli.
Questo significa che la nostra visione "in tempo reale" è limitata a un periodo temporale che è solo una parte insignificante dell'evoluzione: un decimilionesimo , per l'esattezza.

E' chiaro che tutto ci appare immobile: è come osservare un singolo fotogramma di una pellicola che ne contiene 10 milioni!

(...)il numero di generi e di specie nei milioni di anni non è increased gradually and with some continuity, as in the Darwinian theory, but appears suddenly in the Cambrian, with an apparent jump from nothing than before!

Maybe. The curious thing is that the author is continuing to bite Anticorpi.info of Darwin's theory of original, showing that they completely ignore the scientific developments of recent decades.
slow and gradual evolution theory devised by Darwin (which - let us remember - certainly did not have modern scientific instruments) has been replaced by a beautiful piece.
Already in the fifties made its way to the theory of punctuated equilibrium and today the scientific theory most scholars is that of neo-Darwinism combining the research of Darwin and Mendel (remember? that of peas ...) with data supplied by the analyzer and the latest scientific discoveries.
Today the theory of speciation as part of neo-Darwinism, is shared by scientists, explains why there are sudden changes and is proven by scientific observations.

E 'therefore clearly ANTICORPI.info wrote a bunch of nonsense .
fact is not true that Darwin's theory has stagnated for 150 years, it has since been repeatedly revised and improved, and this method is called scientifico, altro che ideologia.
Non è vero che non è dimostrata: gli studi sugli animali, specialmente sugli insetti (ma anche sui microrganismi) che avendo vita brevissima consentono di osservare numerosissime generazioni nel giro di poco tempo, hanno dimostrato la sua fondatezza.

Non è nemmeno vera quest'altra affermazione:

(...)da una specie all'altra vi sono sempre e solo salti e mai continuità! Ossia due specie vicine che vengono messe a confronto, presentano caratteristiche già formate, già compiute, e non in divenire, come ci si aspetterebbe. Non si riesce quindi a capire come tra due specie con tratti già compiuti si passi ad un'altra specie. Questa mancanza è perhaps the most serious. Of so-called "connecting links" between the various species have never been found in certain and unequivocal, if not some vague and highly debatable. Famous is the missing link between ape and man, but not the only one.

fact the connecting links between different species were found , explaining how the texts that illustrate the theory of speciation.
The fact that in some cases (ape - man) were not found, no means no. Let's talk about old stuff 2 or 3 million years, is not that they are digging under a bush in the backyard.
Unfortunately, in this case the author of ANTICORPI.info wrote una baggianata : l'anello di congiunzione tra scimmia e uomo è stato trovato .
Ne hanno parlato media e stampa professionale già nel 2009, anche se la presentazione ufficiale è avvenuta nella primavera del 2010.

Altro che complotto ideologico della borghesia capitalista.

Tra l'altro, le diversità nell'ambito della stessa specie sono evidentissime: basti considerare quanto può variare l'altezza di un uomo o il colore della sua pelle, per rendersi conto che l'evoluzione (intesa come cambiamento, proprio come dicono gli scienziati) non si è mai fermata.

Piuttosto, a voler essere creazionisti, sì che ci sarebbero domande cui è difficile rispondere.
Perché mai Dio avrebbe dovuto creare le zanzare e i complottisti?
Al contrario, la teoria della speciazione risponde a queste domande.
A volte nasce una persona seria ed equilibrata, a volte ti esce fuori un Mazzucco o un Chiesa o un Blondet . E' l'imprevedibilità della natura...

Ringraziamo Alessandro "Connacht" M. per la segnalazione.