EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM in the same CLASSROOM?

Cause a stir in Europe the forced resignation of Michael Reiss, professor of science in the Institute of Education (U. of London) and Director of the Royal Society, for his tolerance with the teaching of Creationism in science classes. The most prestigious society in the world can not take in the same cradle to Darwin and Creationists. Sir Harry Kroto said "Can any teacher correctly interpret the Creationism?:No". In the book Science, Evolution, and creationism published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, it is established: "Because creationists ideas lack of scientific reasoning discuss it in a classroom is inappropriate for lack of scientific support. However many scientifics describe the beginning of the universe in virtually the same terms that the cosmological Genesis.

Confronted with children with creationists views, teachers need to be updated, being necessary retraining them. If someone refers to Creationism in a classroom, the teacher should explain why evolution is a solid scientific theory and Creationism not (lack of scientific support). Teachers need to discuss openly Creationism as an alternative to evolutionary theory. Reiss said that although Creationism lack of scientific bases, students who believed in it can be alienated, by not considering it at all. Teachers should teach why science is solid and Creationism lacks scientific basis. Many scientists fear that considerations of Creationism in a classroom could legitimizes it. Students who believe in Creationism do not see the world of science at the same perspective, being difficult to change their mentality in a class of 50 minutes, but be taught well.

CREACIONISMO y ECOLUCIONISMO en el mismo SALON de CLASE?

Causa revuelo en Europa la forzada renuncia de Michael Reiss, profesor de ciencia del Institute of Education (U. of London) y Director de Educación del Royal Society, por su tolerancia con la enseñanza del creacionismo durante las clases de ciencia. Por cierto, la sociedad mas prestigiosa del mundo no puede tener en la misma cuna a Darwin y al Creacionismo. Los pedidos de expulsión de su cargo trás un discurso suyo, rayan en un fundamentalismo cientifico. Sir Harry Kroto dijo ”Puede cualquier profesor interpretar correctamente el Creacionismo?No”. En en el libro Science, Evolution, and Creationism publicado por la US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, se dice : "al no ser las ideas creacionistas producto de un razonamiento cientifico discutirlas en un salón de clases resulta inapropiado por falta de soporte cientifico. No obstante, muchos cientificos describen el inicio del universo en virtualmente los mismos términos cosmológicos que el Génesis.

Frente a niños con puntos de vista creacionistas, muchos profesores no están actualizados, siendo necesario reentrenarlos. Si alguien alude al Creacionismo en un salón de clases, el profesor deberia explicar porque la evolución es una teoria cientifica sólida y porque el creacionismo no lo es (ausencia de soporte cientifico). Los profesores necesitan discutir abiertamente el Creacionismo como alternativa a la teoria evolutiva. Reiss dijo que aunque el Creacionismo carecia de bases cientificas, los profesores de ciencia podrian alienar a los estudiantes que creian en ella, al no considerarla en absoluto. Los profesores deberian enseñar como trabaja la ciencia y porque el Creacionismo carece de bases cientificas. Muchos cientificos temen que consideraciones del Creacionismo en un salón de clases los legitima. Los estudiantes que creen en el Creacionismo no ven al mundo de modo cientifico, siendo dificil cambiar su mentalidad en una clase de 50 minutos, aunque se les enseñe bien.

BIOLOGICAL SCISSORS AGAINST AIDS.

3 articles appeared last week in Science, are possible candidates to scientific breaktroughs of the year. 1) the first one (already, commented by us), is the genomic bacterial transplants, carried out by C. Venter and colleagues 2) total eradication of the HIV-1, virus and its genotype in the laboratory, by means of biological scissors (we comment it today) and a but deep article that we will comment tomorrow :3) related with what is given in calling EVO-DEVO (questions to natural selection`s postulates and organic evolution, settled down by Darwin).

Up to now the therapies to combat the virus of the AIDS don't achieved their final goals (total eradication and/or death of the virus). For that reason when - for some reason - the medication is interrupted (that is of for life), the illness reappears. Some scientists even speak of failure to eradicate this viral epidemic. We believe that the total cure of the AIDS should be based on immunologic mechanisms (vaccination) or others, inside them a more appropriate study of certain affected people (African prostitutes, previously sick) – self-cured - without medications of for half. The paraphernalia of current medications try to impede: a) the union of the virus to the cellular membrane b) the generation of double viral chains (with antiretrovirals), annulling the action of the enzyme reverse transcriptasa c) putting obstacles to the action of the integrase enzyme impeding the entrance of the virus to the cellular nucleus or: d) annulling the action of cellular proteases (that normally conducts protein proteolysis by hydrolysis of the peptide bonds that link amino acids together in the polypeptide chain), an then the adequate shaping of the virus, etc. That´s to say the drugs alone achieve palliative goals. The illness is stopped, but not eliminated. Inside the new therapies against the virus, we find interesting to mention the work of German researchers (Hamburg AIDS, Heinrich-Pette-Institute for Experimental Virology and Immunology and Dresden Max-Planck-Institut for Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics), who have eradicated (killed the HIV-1 integrated provirus and its genotype in the laboratory, in hardly 10 weeks). For it, during 2 years they modified (created an evolved variant), of the enzyme recombinase (usually in charge of to recognize and to cut accurately certain areas of the human normal genotype :DNA). After 129 improved generations of the enzyme recombinase, they were able to obtain a tailored recombinase, the same that after recognizing an asymmetric sequence within the HIV-1 LTR, slowly went eliminating it in cellular cultures, disappearing it with it genotype, until finally to expel virus´remains of affected cells (limphocytes). Nevertheless, Hauber is conscious that his recombinase could also cause damage to normal DNA. For that reason, he says that after 3 years of experiments with animals, they will be clever to begin the clinical tests.

Physical inmortality

We have exposed in previous articles our hypothesis of human cell immortality (lost to consequence of evolution). Now revising an article of A.V. Makrushin specialist in aging of I.D. Papanin Institute of Biology/Inland Waters (Russian Academy of Sciences), published in Progress of Gerontology (2006, issue 19), we find conceptual coincidences between this and ours. According to Makrushin, the first pluricellular animals possessed physical immortality, lost in the course of the evolution. These mostly possessed a modular structure, with identical offspring concentrated in colonies (sponges), born by gemmation. When the environment began to change the single defensive resource of sponges (changes in their forms), didn't go enough to escape to environmental pressure. In front of the change some sponges continued alive as long as other, involutioned. Involutión signature was the birth of some sponges using substances (liberated by the involutioned), in its building.

Nevertheless, the involutión (ageing), of some sponges reproduced by gemmation doesn't influence in the evolution because the genotype of the involutioned (aged), sponges was the same one of that its offsprings. When continuing evolving, the metazoos replaced their gemmation for sexual reproduction. With each one of their new offsprings (except monozigotics twins), they began to possess an unique genotype, transforming the lost of an individual into an irreplaceable genetic event, when changing the genetic pool of the whole species. From then on the involutión (ageing), began to influence in the evolution of the species. This universal and old mechanism of ageing, possibly originates several times in the course of the evolution of diverse multicellular animal modular groups. This way, the mechanism of primary ageing of multicellular organisms was tissue’s atrophy, transmitted to the humans later in form of ageing/death, strongly imprinted in the program of human development. The sexual reproduction (vast genetic mixtures), brought ageing and death. If humans get perfect clones, we say each every 30 years in their lifetime, it would not be that : immortality induced by clonation (gemmation)?. The memory caught and stored from the original brain, could be transmitted to clone’s brains by means of laser beamses. Not to age is not to change, to be without-tempo (maintaining identical genetic pools). The other option is stop the time by means of hormonal manipulations -before the puberty- being like children by always (neoteny).

Inmortalidad fisica.

Hemos expuesto en articulos anteriores nuestra hipótesis de la inmortalidad (perdida por ahora), celular humana. Ahora revisando un articulo de A.V. Makrushin especialista en envejecimiento del I.D. Papanin Institute of Biology/Inland Waters (Russian Academy of Sciences), publicado en Progress of Gerontology (2006, issue 19), encontramos coincidencias conceptuales entre este y las nuestras. Según Makrushin, los primeros animales pluricelulares poseyeron inmortalidad fisica, perdiendola en el curso de la evolución. Estos mayormente poseian una estructura modular, con descendientes idénticos concentrados en colonias (esponjas, por ejemplo), emergidas por gemación. Cuando el medio ambiente empezó a cambiar el único recurso defensivo de las esponjas (cambios en sus formas), no fué suficiente para escapar a la presión ambiental. Frente al cambio algunas esponjas continuaron vivas en tanto otras, involucionaron. Signo de involución era el nacimiento de algunas esponjas empleando sustancias liberadas por las involucionadas, en su construcción.

No obstante, la involución (envejecimiento), de algunas esponjas reproducidas por gemación no influenció en la evolución debido a que el genotipo de los padres involucionados (vejez), era el mismo del de sus desendientes. Al continuar evolucionando, los metazoos reemplazaron su gemación por la reproducción sexual. Con ella cada uno de los descendientes (excepto los gemelos monozigóticos), empezaron a poseer un genotipo unico, convirtiendo la perdida de un individuo en un evento genético irremplazable, al cambiar el pool genético de la especie entera. Desde entonces la involución (vejez), empezó a influenciar en la evolución de las especies. Este universal y antiguo mecanismo de envejecer, posiblemente se originó varias veces en el curso de la evolución de diversos grupos animales modulares multicelulares. Asi, el mecanismo de envejecimiento primario de los organismos multicelulares fué la atrofia tisular, trasmitida después a los humanos en forma de vejez/muerte, impreso fuertemente en el programa de desarrollo humano. La reproducción sexual (vastos barajamientos geneticos), trajo vejez y muerte. Si los humanos lograsen clonaciones perfectas, digamos cada 30 años no seria eso inmortalidad inducida por clonacion (gemacion?). La memoria captada y almacenada del cerebro original, podria ser trasmitida a los cerebros de los clones mediante rayos laser. No envejecer es no cambiar, ser atemporales, ser los mismos, manteniendo pooles genéticos idénticos. La otra opción es detener el tiempo mediante manipulaciones hormonales, antes de la pubertad, ser como niños por siempre (neotenia).