Free Bus Forsale Eagle

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone: two Hollywood superstars before and after

University Madrid

" not write for those examining
new books quickly, often
with the intention of finding them

preconceived ideas, but for the few who read, to meditate
deeply, who love

study of nature and are capable of sacrifice even their own interests,
knowledge a new truth. "
JB Lamarck (1744-1829)

stories and stories evolutionism of Lamarck described in Philosophie Zoologique (1809) no had better reception than his other theories. When the Emperor Napoleon Lamarck presented a copy of the book, was reduced to tears by abusive Napoleon reluctance to accept what he thought a work on meteorology. Lamarck continued to publish dozens of articles until 1820, but spent the last eleven years of his life blind and destitute. He was buried in a mass grave and his bones were exhumed five years later to make room for other . (Harris, CL, 1985). This story, as brief as cruel, it's just one of the many ways in which many historians of evolution (Darwinism, more exact) usually settle the contributions of Jean Baptiste de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck to Biology. However, these historians take a more sympathetic, almost tender, when describing the terrible circumstances that he faced Charles Darwin: " The publication of The Origin of Species" in 1859 sparked a huge scandal in British society and Darwin had to suffer the humiliation of seeing their distinctive caricatured bearded face on the body of a monkey. At the same time, the ecclesiastical authorities of the Anglican Church denounced the theory of evolution was the most degrading vision of being human ever conceived, and some even got to compare him with the serpent in the Garden of Eden, for attempting to pervert the British society with their "perverse ideas" . "
As you know, revolutionary ideas have always encountered stiff resistance from the establishment. Apparently, Darwin found some difficulties similar to those of his predecessor in the dissemination of ideas. And the reason is understandable. In his final warning

Lamarck Zoological Philosophy writes:
However, many of the new considerations that are exposed in this work, since its inception adversely prevent the reader, by reason only that the ideas already admitted they will reject the new. As the power of old ideas on which they first appear favor this prevention, especially when it involves a minor interest, it appears that the difficulties that already exist to discover new truths, studying nature, they added even greater make them accept .

The "lesser interest" mentioned Lamarck could well be it for you: Napoleon had a utilitarian conception of art and science as tools to complete the destiny of France with the skills to help him unify its diverse empire. In fact, during his expedition to Egypt was accompanied by a team of scientists well paid, but this does not mean that Napoleon was an admirer of the intellectual community. According to their historians, concerned intellectuals and free thinkers "that band of idiots ." The harsh reaction to the presentation of the work of Lamarck was apparently more specific connotations.

Gershenowitz In the words of Harry (1980):

One of the greatest scientists of the time, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, seems the antithesis of everything that Napoleon valued. Napoleon contemplated to Lamarck as a function of both components political scientists. Lamarck's political heritage was based on a close relationship with the leaders of the Revolution. /.../ In addition to the clash of personalities, Lamarck's theory of evolution by slow gradual change did not fit with the perception of the reality of Napoleon. His rise to power had come through a series of political catastrophes. /.../ The scientific and personal opponent of Lamarck, Baron Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) won the favor of Napoleon which also found that preferred its political and administrative skills. Cuvier's political conservatism led him to offer complete loyalty to the despotic rule rapidly growing. Napoleon, to show your appreciation to a loyal, Cuvier rewarded with a series of academic and administrative positions .

This complaint to the power of responsibility (or at least the implication) in the success or failure of a scientific theory can seem interested but not complete justification of facts that could have other explanations, including could be the scientific quality of the work. One way to elucidate these issues can also use history to understand or at least have an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat factors or contingencies were able to overcome the "difficulties" encountered Darwin.

The publication on November 24, 1894, "The Origin of Species (to be more exact,"
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the maintenance of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Existence

)
caused a scandal on the day of its publication and became a global best seller "

(Browne, J. 2007). Indeed, the first edition of 1250 copies sold out the day of its publication, and a second 3000 copies sold out within a week. The outraged reaction from conservatives to the "discovery" developments led by Bishop Samuel Wilbeforce was accompanied by criticism of evolutionary scientists (called "Lamarckian" by then), but also strong support from scientists closer to power. Sir Thomas Henry Huxley and Sir Francis Dalton Hooker led the founding support the X-Club that also included Herbert Spencer, John Tindall and other leading scientists, with the aim of "promoting Darwinism and scientific liberalism ." For a decade, controlled the Royal Society. Huxley was president of the Geological Society, the Ethnological Society, the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the Marine Biological Association and the Royal Society. (Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277746/TH-Huxley/93549/Power-and- Pope-Huxley) "
With 10 seats in Royal Commissions, deliberating on everything from fisheries disease or vivisection, clearly penetrated the labyrinthine corridors of power
. " The X-club "
was accused of exerting too much influence over the scientific environment
London."

This information does not give the impression that Darwin was sitting helpless before the

scientific establishment, much less if we consider that was made a member of the Linnean Society, the Geological Society, the Royal Society ... Although one can not waive their success to the political and social powers taking into account that, unlike the miserable conditions he died and was buried Lamarck, Darwin lived and died surrounded by economic fortunes and a great social prestige, and his death was the subject of a state funeral in Westminster Abbey, where only five people were buried outside the nobility.

In any case, given the support they received, there is no choice but to conclude that the scientific quality of his work was, of necessity, a role to play in its success. Since then, the scientific findings contained in it should be extraordinary, given that this success has continued for 150 years until the end of " The Origin of Species" can be considered just the most important science book ever published (Browne , 2007). The "errors" of Lamarck ... Napoleon behavior marked with an unblemished scientific reputation Lamarck had previously been accepted by the venerable sagacity . (Gershenowitz, 1980). However, despite the terrible conditions in which Lamarck, expelled from the Sorbonne, became their last eleven years, recovered after his death the scientific recognition for its zoological

Philosophy and scholars of evolution themselves as "Lamarckian" (Harris, 1968). To understand why Darwin's book eliminated so radically that work with the scientific landscape, you may want a brief review of the cornerstones of

Lamarckian conception of evolution. Let's start
contemplate the meaning that Lamarck was the study of evolution:

Everyone knows that every science must have its philosophy (theory), and only this way can make real progress. In vain naturalists consume all their time in describing new species / ... / For if philosophy is forgotten, their progress without actually result and the whole work will be imperfect.
(p. 48). A clear account of the need for theoretical postulates, few unifying concepts capable of providing the same way as in other experimental sciences, coherence, consistency Biology. For this, the experimental method is to follow the unforgiving standards of rationalism:

analyze

Officer at the Museum of Natural History to animals without vertebrae I called, because of lacking spine my research on many of them, and the comments that I was forced to perform in comparative anatomy, soon gave me the highest idea of \u200b\u200bscientific interest that inspires deep consideration. /.../ The true means, in effect, come to know well an object, even in the smallest detail, is to begin by considering it in its entirety, examining, for the moment, and its mass, and its extension, and the set of all component parts, by inquiring what is their nature and origin, what their relationships with other known objects in a word, considering it from all points of view that can enlighten you on the general concern. (Introduction, p.19).


This search usually begins by trying to understand the phenomenon of life:

As the conditions for the existence of life are already full in less complex organization, though reduced to a minimum it was know how this organization because of any changes had come to give rise to other less simple and gradually more complicated organisms, as seen in the entire length of the animal scale (p. 249).

This requires the existence of morphogenetic principles that operate spontaneously in organizations:

There's more: if Nature could not give the acts of the organization's ability to increasingly complicated, causing accretion energy of motion of fluids, and consequently the organic movement, and if I had not kept reproductions of all the progress of the organization and composition of all improvements acquired, probably would not have produced such varied infinitely many plants and animals as different from each other by their state of organization and powers. In short, she has not suddenly been created by the eminent faculties of animals, since those powers are checked with the help of systems very complicated organ (p. 197).

principles which are equally active in the response of organisms to environmental changes and new requirements imposed by it, the circumstances influence the shape and organization of individuals / ... /

Certainly, if I tomasen these expressions to the letter, I attribute a mistake, because whatever may be the circumstances, do not operate directly on the form and on the organization of animal modification. But big changes in circumstances occur in large animals changing needs and such changes occur in them necessarily actions. Then if the new requirements become constant or very durable animals then acquire new habits, which are as durable as the needs that have given rise

(p. 167).

... and communication with the environment, helping to preserve order, the balance of nature:

The proliferation of small animal species is so significant, they would make the globe inhabitable for others, if nature had not opposed an end to such proliferation. But as serve as prey to a host of other animals, and the duration of your life is very limited, the amount is always in proper proportions for the conservation of their races /.../ and it preserves its about the kind of balance that should exist

(p. 98).

Ultimately, the generation of forms, even according to a tendency for the bodies own self-organization, is linked also to the action of external factors. These factors appear as environmental challenges, and opportunities to pose to Lamarck that living beings manifest their inherent adaptive capabilities. Lamarck leaves a path open to the encounter with his beloved

Biologie consolidated on the foundation of hard work and a mind endowed with great perspicacity but apparently not enough to predict the future that awaited his enormous contribution to knowledge:

Publishing these observations, with the results I've been getting, I have intended to invite the enlightened men who love the study of nature, to follow, verify and draw on their own the consequences may be appropriate. /.../ I will have achieved the goal that I intend to if the lovers of natural science in this book are some views and some useful principles, if the observations I have outlined in it are confirmed or approved by those who have had opportunity to address these same issues, and whether the ideas will be born, whether they are, can advance our knowledge or our journey to reach the unknown truths. (Warning, p. 260)

self-organizing systems, the tendency of complex systems to a higher level of organization, the involvement of homeoboxes

present in organisms from the Cambrian, in the generation of morphological novelties , horizontal gene transfer, the ability to respond to the environment of the moving parts of genomes and epigenetic phenomena, systems and ecological networks revealed by the powerful current tools and tremendous progress in observing capabilities, would have been the natural continuation, consistent, Lamarck's contributions rather than the mass of information and interpretations unrelated, even contradictory, which are at present. But the November 24, 1859 the road was cut short and the contributions of Lamarck were forgotten. And forgetting is a second death.

... and successes of Darwin

The merits of a work capable of burying the extensive work of the most brilliant scientist of the Enlightenment must be, without doubt, impressive. Let us see some of the key concepts of the most important scientific books ever published.

As regards the design of the scientific method, it could consider providing more "creative" Darwin (1859):

the beginning of my observations it seemed likely that a careful study of domesticated animals and cultivated plants would offer the best chance to clarify this obscure problem. And I walked not mistaken, in this and in all other perplexing cases I have invariably found that our knowledge, however imperfect, of the variation by means of domesticity, was the best and safest north. I dare express my conviction of the high value of these studies, although they have been very commonly neglected by naturalists.

(Introduction, pg. 15).

And indeed, this method neglected "naturalists", for it seems to be the foundation of their work, judging by the profusion with which he dealt with in the first forty pages, with special emphasis on raising pigeons and the repeated references throughout the work. And the biological processes responsible for evolutionary change are derived logically from the observations obtained by the experimental method:

When we certainly changes that have occurred useful to man, can not believe unlikely to occur in the course of many successive generations, other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life. And if they occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can live) that individuals having any advantage over others, however small, will have the best chance to survive and reproduce their species? Moreover, we can be sure that any variation in the smallest degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favorable variations and individual differences, and the destruction of those that are harmful, is what I call "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"
(p. 94).

But, judging by their roots in the current scientific literature, seems to be considered a vital contribution is the scientific basis of the causal variation: random:
I've spoken to here as if the variations are so common and multiform in organic beings in a state of domesticity and not so common in the wild, were due to chance. Needless to say, this term is completely inaccurate and only serves to recognize heroically our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation

(p. 149). What seems certain is that his conception Nature does not lead to her with much affection, but this can be explained by the philosophical origin of its theoretical basis:
Hence, as there are more individuals than can survive, there must necessarily in all cases a struggle for existence / ... / This is the doctrine of Malthus applied with force multiplied to all animal and plant kingdoms, because in this case, no artificial increase of food and prudent limitation

marriages (p. 78). You could say that the idea expressed with more conviction in the work of Darwin is the extrapolation of the activities of ranchers and farmers to the phenomena of Nature:
I called this principle that every change is kept small, it is useful, natural selection, to mark its relation to the selection of man power. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, that survive the most appropriate is more accurate, and sometimes equally convenient

(p. 76). Even when in his other great work The variation of animals and plants under domestication (1868) raises (without abandoning the concept of natural selection) theory of pangenesis a Lamarckian confused idea, whereby each body secreted a "gemmules" by transmitting to descendants acquired characters by parents under the influence of the environment (which was unnecessary as a mechanism for adaptive selection), remained convinced of the usefulness of studying domestic animals and plants for the understanding of Nature: Mr. Pouchet has insisted recently (Plurality of Races, English translation, 1864, p. 83) that
variation under domestication throws no light on the natural modification of species. I can not perceive the strength of his argument, or, more precisely, of their claims to the tenor

(p. .54). Moreover, just as it does not seem to find contradictory "pangenesis" natural selection, does not seem to find problems in reconciling with a whole range of phenomena, some of his own, as the effects of use and disuse:
When discussing special cases passed M. Mivart in silence the effects of use and disuse of parts, which I've always claimed to be highly important and I have dealt at greater length than any other writer (p. 237), the tendency to vary in the same way

(pag . 239),
the amendments are not important to the welfare of the species ... that became constant by the nature of the organism ... but not by natural selection

(p. 236) ... and others who had come "hearsay" from the possible origin of the whale:
in North America has seen the black bear Hearne swimming for hours with his mouth wide open, trapping, almost like a whale

water insects (p. 194) to changes eye position in the Pleuronectidae: On one occasion Malm saw a young fish move to the lower eye on an angular distance of about 70 degrees . His final summary (p. 560) gives us an idea of \u200b\u200bthe coherence of his concept of evolutionary phenomenon, but above all, his conception of Nature:

These laws, taken in a broader sense, are growth Player, variability, result the direct and indirect action of the living conditions and the use and disuse, increased at a rate so high, leading to a struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection, which entails divergence of character and the extinction of less improved forms. Thus, a direct consequence of the war of nature, shortage and death, the highest object we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals . Faith in the "natural" selection " The publication of the Origin of Species marks the Hegira of Science from the idolatries of special creation to the Faith of Evolution cigar. " T. H, Huxley in the Times (1862).

What is left standing among all this colorful catalog of Darwin's contributions understanding of evolution? It seems incorrect to say that there has been a "distillation" of them all to get the purest essence of their ideas: the "natural" selection. And if you look closely at the scientific literature we find that the Careful use of this concept is primarily aimed at explaining the relations between (and within) the various agencies. As current phenomena of life there seems to be a special interest in a deeper analysis of their relationship with the evolutionary process, as has occurred since "random" is meaningless to try. The coherent integration of these processes "selective" with the phenomena of evolution are solved with vague projection "over time."

In the lucid words of Miguel Iradier (2009):

Darwinism not only has not discovered the concept of evolution, but in fact explicitly blocked. This should be viewed with the greatest attention. In addition to ignoring the real mechanisms viable novelty, change and organization, Darwinism is the best camouflage of immobility: the most vulgar of all past and future relate to what is: the present status quo. This has been understood to wonder anyone who needed an explicit justification for any act otherwise unjustifiable, and is being done on a large scale still
.

Because ... let's see what conditions must be met for selection "natural" acting as administrator of life: The first and foremost is that the characteristics of any kind are somehow "registered" in organisms ( seems obvious without this condition there is nothing to select.) The second is that some of these features "innate" confer on their holders any "advantage" over non-possessors thereof. What is the scientific meaning of "advantage"? That the individuals carrying them are "fittest" or most appropriate tighter to survive in the harsh battlefield that is Nature. The translation of this phenomenon to the current scientific language expresses Ernst Mayr (1997) with these illustrative words

Mathematicians convincingly demonstrated that mutations even relatively small benefits, were favored by selection, and their findings helped to overcome several objections to natural selection .

A Mayr what is meant is the "creation" of population genetics
,

supposed empirical basis of Darwinism today, and the objections mentioned were those of the most prestigious breeders of the early twentieth century and deVries and Bateson that, based on experimental data, denied the relationship of small individual variations with evolution. I can not resist repeating the story that Richard Milner, an ardent Darwinist, makes us the genesis of the current theoretical basis of biology in
Dictionary of evolution

(1995): RC Punnett, Bateson disciple, explained the problem to your friend
GH Hardy, professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, who reportedly wrote the solution in the cuff of his shirt while eating. Considered as very basic, Hardy refused to present it in a publication generally read their fellow mathematicians, so the Punnett presented in a biology journal. It was the only foray into genetics Hardy. The solution obtained by Professor Hardy was that simple binomial expression (p2 +2 pq + q2) = 1 describes the proportion of each genotype in the population, where p represents the dominant allele (A), q is the recessive (a) and (p + q = 1)
.

may be doubted that the pastimes of GH Hardy in the restaurant would be considered a "foray into genetics," but what this story leaves no room for doubt is that in this birth of the theoretical basis of the Current Biology was involved some "interest" in maintaining the staggering selection experiment "natural" with all that this implies. An "interest" does not seem strictly scientific nature. According to Michael Rose (1999) Anglo scientists shared values middle class of his time on sexual immorality and delinquency, and both Charles Davenport in the U.S. and the British Pearson and Fisher (all
them parents of Population Genetics) were eugenicists.

The "discipline" created by Sir Francis Galton, raised in his 1865 book "Hereditary Genius

" and supported the theory of eugenics convinced his cousin, Charles Darwin, gave rise to an integration between science and power that Darwinism led scientists to attempt a "biological concept" of society, led by the 'best' of purposes: to eliminate the component of "inappropriate" developments in their societies. In 1963, Theodosius Dobzhansky, then director of the American Eugenics Society, writes: Being an Anthropologist
only by avocation, I venture to May Perhaps Claim for More Than MOST anthropologists anthropology Are Claim for Themselves. The ultimate function of anthropology is no less Than to Provide the Knowledge requisite for the guidance of human evolution

. The distortion of "natural" selection made by the social progress in civilized societies was a serious problem, as he had exposed his teacher in his second great work, "
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex

"(1871, pag. 190): plan to do the opposite, and prevent where possible eliminating, routed all the efforts of civilized nations that tend to build asylums for the imbecile, wounded and sick, the laws on begging and the efforts and work our physicians facing life-sustaining until the last minute. Here we enter the vaccine also has had to preserve thousands of people. Thus, the weak members of civilized nations are spreading their nature, with grave detriment of the human species as easily include those engaged in animal husbandry household. It is incalculable how quickly degenerate domestic races when not in care or are cared for evil, and man-made exception, none is so ignorant as to derive their worst breeding animals. "

an attitude with serious consequences, according to Ernst Mayr, "the Darwin of the Twentieth Century" (1976): civilized men in these two components of selective value, superiority adaptive and reproductive success rarely coincide. Individuals with a genetic endowment below average does not necessarily make a contribution below the average to the gene pool of the next generation. Separation in modern societies the mere reproductive success of genuine adaptation poses a serious problem for the future of humanity .

The Darwinian conception of life came from the petty Malthus justification of the harsh social conditions of its time to end up becoming a whole worldview, " The evolution includes all stages of development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, human and cultural. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are unjustified. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man a product of the evolution of life . "

Dobzhansky (1967). Not surprisingly the enthusiasm with which this "scientific explanation" of reality, whose genetic determinism was a great justification for the status quo

, was welcomed by the global tycoons. Exhaustively documented in the article " Lysenko. The materialist theory of evolution in the USSR "(2009), Juan Manuel Olarrieta
reports that Rockefeller put science in the service of eugenics and throughout the twentieth century articulated his project in four successive phases: the first is the Malthusianism, population control and anti-birth plans, the second is the Eugenics, the new genetics, sterilization and apartheid, and the third is the "green revolution", fertilizer, fertilizers and pesticides used heavily in agriculture after 1945, the fourth is the GM

control seeds and global agriculture.
This narrative may seem simplified or biased, but if we consider that both the term and practice of molecular biology was coined by Warren Weawer during his time as director of the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Institute, the paternity of the "engineering" gene belongs to Rollin D. Hotchkiss of the Rockefeller University, the environmentally and socially disastrous "Green Revolution" came from the Rockefeller Foundation, that this university is following the birth of "genetically modified organisms", that same foundation promotes the campaign for the introduction of GM crops in the countries of Third World and "second contraceptive revolution" based on the use of vaccines for contraception had its origin in 1978 at the Rockefeller University, it is not necessary to be gifted with a very keen mind to suspect that any relationship has the Rockefeller empire projects reveals Olarrieta. It also informs us that John Krige, where book
American hegemony and the reconstruction of science in postwar Europe

"(2006) illustrates the control process of science:

Science was part of the postwar Marshall Plan so that scientists were paid in dollars while others could barely survive. For example, CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) was a U.S. project aimed at preventing European researchers are attracted by the USSR, as had happened in 1929. /.../ In 1948, Rockefeller money, buy some lots near Paris, lift buildings, facilities and laboratories provide unconditional team of scientists, trained in California with his flies ./.../ Morgan and Rockefeller pulled the strings of science in Europe. In addition to goods, Europe imported U.S. ideology, characterized by reductionism and mechanism coarser, which is topped up by their own success

.
scientific

Lamarck's death was not a natural death. Its beautiful design of nature as something living, and life as a process by which organisms and environment are mutually constructed collided with determinism, against ideological extrapolation whose aim was to justify the unjustifiable. The reduction of life processes and molecular mechanical man 'defining gene sequence "with the aim of changing them at will, neither had a natural birth. And the random exculpatory no limits to attempts to dominate wildest nature of those who are considered gifted by the "cosmic law of evolution" to direct the destiny of the world.

Empire Lamarck killed and killed while biology. Bibliography BROWNE, J. (2007). "The Origin of Species" Debate. DARWIN, Ch.R. (1859): "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. " English version: "The Origin of Species." Akal, 1998.

DARWIN, Ch.R. (1871). "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex." English version: "The Origin of Man." Ediciones Petronio. Barcelona. 1973.

DARWIN, Ch R. (1868): "The variation of animals and plants under domestication." London: John Murray ed. English version: "The variation of animals and plants under domestication. CATARACT / CSIC / UNAM / AMC, 2008. T. Dobzhansky (1963). Anthropology and the natural sciences, the problem of human evolution. Curr Anthropol. 4:146-148. T. Dobzhansky

(1967). "Changing Man", Science, Vol 155, January 27, 1967.

GERSHENOWITZ, H. (1980). Napoleon and Lamarck. Indian Journal of History of Science, 15 (2), 204-209.

HARRIS, CL (1985): "Evolution. Genesis and Revelations." Hermann Blume. Madrid.

IRADIER, M. (2009). "The circle of Petersburg" Hurqualya Ed.
Krige, J. (2006). "American Hegemony and the Postwar reconstruction of science in Europe." MIT Press.
Lamarck, JB de M. (1809): Zoological Philosophy. " (English translation). Full Editorial Alta. 1986.

Mayr, E. (1976). "Evolution and the Diversity of Life." Belknap Press

Milner, R. (1995). "Dictionary of evolution." Bibliography, Barcelona

OLARRIETA, JM (2009). "Lisenko. The materialist theory of evolution the USSR "nomads, Théorie UCM. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

ROSE, MR (1999): "Darwin's Spectre. Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World. " Pricenton University Press.

Gay Meeting Places Alabama

Sandín Maximum: Lamarck and the revenge of the empire

Electric Box Level 41 Solution

David Copperfield Laser Illusion ... without comment. Soraya