Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览弗雷德·里德(Fred Reed)档案
查克·达尔文和他的小动物
对读者的可能有趣的回应
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Over the years I have written columns about the growing doubts among scientists and mathematicians over aspects of Darwinian evolution. The fury aroused among the faithful has been intense and often personal, the doubts being called “ridiculous” but with no explanation of why they are ridiculous. These assertions are frequently, but not always, made by people who couldn’t tell toluene from the Taj Mahal. The following, for what if anything it is worth, is a response I wrote to an internet acquaintance whom I will call Derek.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

德里克,

Since you have attacked me harshly and even insultingly for my doubts about what might be called doctrinaire evolutionism’s official story, perhaps you will permit me to defend myself.

I note that your castigation of me has been devoid of substance, being partly ad hominem (“Fred, you are just a retired reporter….”), partly crowd-sourced appeal to authority (“Ninety-nine point nine percent of biologists agree….”), and partly rank-pulling (“I hold the following imposing degrees from Berkeley, an imposing university….”)–none of these degrees, I note, related to evolution.

Should not a conversation on evolution deal with evolution rather than the personal virtues and defects of those conversing? And I am not clear just how you know regarding which matters I have, as you say, “absolutely no knowledge,” but there are many of these and I presume you have your sources.

But to the matter at hand:

Perhaps I err, but I do not believe that science can best be advanced by refusing to examine it. Had this approach been followed in the past, we would still believe in epicycles and the spontaneous generation of mice (as we now believe in the spontaneous generation of all life). The angry dismissal of questions seems to have less in common with science than with religious fanaticism, the more distant shores of Marxism, and conspiracy theories. I will add that in decades of journalism I have noticed that the intensity of outrage at the questioning of a belief is inversely proportional to confidence in the belief. It is not necessary to defend the invulnerable.

It is not true that virtually all biologists accept orthodox evolutionism. The ideas you deride in my writing are of course chiefly not mine. They are those of the substantial and growing number of highly qualified men who question Darwin. Many of them hold doctorates in the evolutionary sciences from such places as CalTech and Cambrigde and have done decades of research at these or similar institutions. Many have written books. From previous correspondence I gather that it is not your practice to read things that you might disagree with (I apologize preemptively if I am wrong) but I can give suggestions if you will make an exception. Perhaps obtusely, I adhere to my prejudice that it is unseemly to dismiss as ridiculous books that one has not read and ideas that one has not encountered.

That doubts arise regarding Darwin is not surprising since the theory when propounded was more a philosophical idea than a scientific principle, and based on almost nothing, which is how much was known of the relevant cell biology. The 161 years since the publication of 起源 is an awful long time for a scientific theory to go unquestioned. In that period physics suffered (among other astonishments) the Michaelson Morley experiment, special relativity, general relativity, the wave-particle duality, the EPR paradox, and quantization of light. In astronomy, the red shift, the 4K background, pulsars, black holes and all sorts of other things. Biology became a field that would have been unrecognizable in 1859. Why should evolution, uniquely among the sciences, enjoy an almost religious aura of infallibility?

I plead not guilty to the arrogance you charge me with. Most of what I have written on evolution consists of questions. A question is an admission of ignorance. How is that arrogant? Permit me an example:

Evolution proceeds by incremental, viable steps from earlier forms. (Is this not so? Am I misstating?) Today’s cells employ three nucleotides per codon, providing 64 permutations to code for 20 aminos, control codons, and some redundancy. (Is this not so?)

My question: from what simpler, viable system can this have evolved? From two nucleotides per codon, allowing coding for sixteen aminos with no control codons?

If no transition from two to three can be adduced, then how did the current system come about?

This is a clear and simple question about a simple and universally well understood coding system, probably taught in high-school biology. If you think the question stupid, tell me why it is stupid. Otherwise, please answer it clearly, or have a specialist of your acquaintance do so, whereupon I will stop asking. But if you do not answer, I will ask why it is not a clear case of irreducible complexity.

I offer the foregoing example because it is unambiguous and does not lend itself to evasion. But a great many other questions, quite fascinating, exist regarding the Ediacaran biota, the Calmbrian phyla, the Chengjiang Maotianshan shales, intraflagellar transport, the various protein fractions of sequence space, DGRNs, multiple simultaneous mutations, and the countless examples of what seem clearly to be irreducible complexity from Behe’s famous bacterial flagellum on.

You say that I am not an evolutionary biologist. I am not. i know no one who is. And as we have had pounded into our heads, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring. On this basis only PhDs would be permitted to write and only on their subjects, not a particularly practical arrangement. You write on many subjects in which you have no formal expertise. We all do. But of course the warning is most wisely made against those going beyond the limits of their knowledge.

For example, while I am not a trained classicist, and you are, in a column I could name (though I am not sure why I would) the members of the Second Triumvirate or the competitors for the throne after the death of Nero, without going beyond the bounds of my competence. These are simple and uncontested facts within the purview of anyone who reads. By contrast, if I waded into the deep waters of classical controversy, such as whether Claudius really was pulled from hiding by Praetorians and made emperor against his will, or whether this story was concocted to keep him from seeming an usurper in a city still unhappy with the demise of the Republic, I would be going far beyond my competence. So I don’t do it. In short, the foundations of most fields are accessible to anyone bothering to open a book. A deep understanding is not.

So with technical subjects. If I were to write (God knows why) that vector cross products, being determinants, are not commutative, or that rotaxanes have been considered as bistable devices for computation, or that pH is the negative logarithm of the hydronium ion concentration, or mention the difference between Shannon information and specified information, or say that thrashing is what happens when the domain of a loop crosses a page-frame boundary, or other such basic stuff, I could do so with confidence though I am not a

mathematician, chemist, information theoretician, or professional programmer. But I do not pretend to be any of these. Most of the things mentioned above are the stuff of introductory undergraduate courses.

The same reasoning holds for the evolutionary sciences. For example, I certainly make no claim to authority in biochemistry. The little I know comes mostly from having read a single book, University Biochemistry,迪克和简 level for a biochemist, presumably an undergraduate text. I do not doubt that you, being of a technical background, know vastly more than I do.

Yet the difficulty of the basics of deep subjects can be overestimated. For example, The first-grade level of biochemistry is just Tinker Toys and Legos, no more mysterious than the workings of an internal-combustion engine: DNA, the RNAs, peptide and phosphodiester bonds, purines and pyrimidines, ribosomes, codons and anticodons, methylation of histones, sugar code, ion channels, all are simple ideas made apparently difficult by technoglop names. The genetic code, which sounds terribly arcane, is far easier to understand than, say, high-school French

In conclusion, there really are many cracks in the official story and many intriguing questions regarding what arguably may be our most fascinating and intellectually important subject we know: Where did we come from, how, and why?. Perhaps investigation and thought would be more illuminating than vituperation and personal attack.

Happy surfing,

弗雷德

 
• 类别: 科学 •标签: 神创论, 达尔文主义 
隐藏109条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Good luck with getting a reasonable response.

    Evolution is a secular religion. You’ve stumbled upon one who considers himself one of the faithful followers (just one layer removed from Darwin, the Christ of Evos).

    • 同意: nickels
  2. Tripps 说:

    My opinion on it has always been that evolution is pretty much fact, rather than theory, in as far as species change over time, they definitely evolve. But first causes, where did we come from, where did life arise, why are we here? Above my pay grade, and probably everyone else’s that writes on it, too. Like the Big Bang, maybe, but pure speculation. Every age thinks their knowledge is settled science, finally correct, but it never is.

    • 回复: @Chuck Hortler
    , @Kim
    , @Realist
  3. WCC 说:

    So many big words this edition, my head is exploding. I tried to go back to try to find what triggered this rant, but couldn’t. But I thoroughly enjoyed the technical areas of science and math you could expound on but didn’t. I wish I could remember them all for the future.

  4. IanJ 说:

    A typically well thought oout and written article – Well done Fred.

    I have always been baffled by the assumed ability of early humans to discover metal ores and produce working tools. The coincidences required do not seem reasonable and I have long been leaning towards a belief in ‘Intelligent Design’, although by whom I cannot speculate. There are many more apparent ‘leaps’ in human capability, let alone understanding that have me doubting evolution or discovery as a mechanism for us developing into the complex beings humans have become, although I cannot believe that any ‘designer’ would have let us get into the current political state of the world..

  5. Exactly and the same might be said about global warming, another domain equally fraught with BS

  6. @Tripps

    The more one tries to pin down what is fact in regards to evolution, the more one realizes why the phrase, “BELIEVE in evolution” is thrown around by proponents.

    Which species have *evolved* over time? There are species which adapt but the last 20 years of microbiology has revealed beyond any doubt that they’re only adapting within the scope of their pre-existing genetic capabilities. Behe adds that organisms can even “break stuff” (devolve) to survive but there is 零证据 of new information being added to any genome in the Darwinian sense of small changes over time accumulating into new organisms.

    * Galapagos Finches: bogus. beaks returned to normal years after Darwin left. They were simply adapting based on previously encoded genetic capabilities. no new species.
    * spotted dark/light moths: complete garbage. they glued the dead moths to trees
    * hegelian embryos: more discredited, philosophy/non-science. Even 19th century contemporaries called Hegel on his nonsense, fake drawings. But they persist in 21st century text books as fake news.
    * Equus evolution as “proof” of evolution has turned to crap. There’s a punctuation dividing any smooth transition of fossils.
    * whale evolution has experienced the same discrediting… assuming they crawled onto land is just nonsense. where’s the proof? there’s lots of philosophy. zero proof.

    Don’t fall for the sleight of hand. Research every instance you think you’ve heard about and you’ll find that ti fails any scientific test but fits nicely into a philosophy class.

    • 同意: nickels
    • 回复: @Tripps
    , @nokangaroos
    , @animalogic
  7. Tripps 说:
    @Chuck Hortler

    嗯...
    Not really sure how to respond to that mish mosh. So Galapagos finches are all one species again?

    • 回复: @anonymous coward
  8. obwandiyag 说:

    No self-respecting evolutionist believes that “Evolution proceeds by incremental, viable steps from earlier forms” anymore. Just goes to show you have no idea what evolutionists believe or disbelieve.

    Googleize “punctuated equilibrium.”

    • 回复: @Rex Little
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
  9. Tripps 说:

    I’m guessing you identify as a Bible believing Christian, am I right?

    • 回复: @Rex Little
  10. TG 说:

    Interesting, I think, that so many ‘conservatives’ insist that blind random forces cannot create complex life forms – but they do insist that the ‘invisible hand’ of blind market forces can create stable and prosperous societies.

    On the other hand, many ‘liberals’ insist that blind random forces can create complex biological life forms – but that the ‘invisible hand’ of blind market forces does not automatically create stable and prosperous societies.

    Does this mean anything? Probably not. But it still seems worth a mention.

    • 回复: @parabarbarian
    , @Kim
  11. Rex Little 说:
    @Tripps

    I’m guessing you identify as a Bible believing Christian, am I right?

    If your question is addressed to Fred, the answer is no, you are not. He has skewered that belief system in past columns.

    • 回复: @Tripps
  12. Rex Little 说:
    @obwandiyag

    No self-respecting evolutionist believes that “Evolution proceeds by incremental, viable steps from earlier forms” anymore.

    Googleize “punctuated equilibrium.”

    From the Wikipedia page on punctuated equilibrium:

    Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism.[62] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sedimentary layers, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next.

  13. @TG

    Well, a modern economy is irreducibly complex. For example, remove the banking system and it would collapse. Therefore it could not possibly have evolved from previous “simpler” systems. Of course, no one would take that proposition seriously because there is considerable evidence from history of how a modern economy can evolve from a basic barter system.

    Similarly, evolutionary theory is a historical science. However, the evidence is harder to find and more difficult to understand.

    • 同意: Colin Wright
    • 回复: @Kim
    , @nokangaroos
  14. Mike78 说:

    一位智者曾经说过
    “The only person who knows everything is a DAMN fool”

    I’m always suspicious of a “Scientist” who says we have THE answers

    That’s not science

    I’ve read that Darwin went to his death bed saying “I’ve been misquoted”

  15. Muggles 说:

    Mere skepticism, however valuable as a tool of cognition, isn’t knowledge. Or wisdom.

    One can question everything until you end up at solipsism, the belief that nothing is “real” other than your own sensory observations.

    It is often difficult to grasp scientific conclusions which appear to be counter intuitive. How can the earth “really” be a slightly elliptical globe when you see it as flat, normally.

    There are many well done biological experiments that demonstrate fundamental evolutionary principles at work. Merely clamoring “how can this be?” isn’t a rational methodology.

    Even worse than that, are the alternative theories of biological existence which make even less sense and have no actual repeatable methodology.

    Using snide lingo, i.e. “chuck darwin” and his “critters” doesn’t elevate your opinions to fact or anything else, other than childish arrogance. Yes, Fred, it is time for you to go to bed now…

    • 同意: Realist
    • 回复: @Realist
  16. TJM 说: • 您的网站

    It’s all hokum that no one can prove. NO ONE KNOWS where we come from. Period.
    My favorite theory is that we are all just part of some alien computer’s game.
    It’s all a fantasy. It’s all a dream. It’s all that Aristotle’s Cave philosophy argument. (Or was it Plutarch? I forget.)
    谁在乎?
    We live here. We do the best that we can.

  17. Kim 说:
    @Tripps

    150 years of looking. Still no transitional fossils. Not a one.

    • 回复: @Tripps
  18. Kim 说:
    @parabarbarian

    The proposition is that random beneficial mutations are selected and preserved by nature as they produce changes in the organism that allow it to survive in a given environment.

    First objection: None of the necessary transitional forms have ever been found in the fossil record.

    Second objection: In order to produce the resultant incredibly complex organs and processes – the eye is the usual example – which require a multitude of such mutations to be assembled in strict order, said mutations would have to be preserved and assembled in those orders through endless generations even while they had no function such that there would be any reason for ‘natural selection’ to preserve them.

    It is just the most ridiculous tosh.

    • 回复: @TG
  19. Kim 说:
    @TG

    Only someone very ignorant – or disingenuous – would suggest that ‘market forces’ are ‘blind random forces’.

    There is nothing in the least random, blind or undirected in humans having needs they wish to satisfy and taking meaningful and cooperative action to do so, i.e., market forces.

    • 回复: @TG
  20. @Chuck Hortler

    Wouldn´t it be nice if one of the naysayers could at least savour the difference
    between Hegel and HAECKEL?

    Item, the whales crept into the water (four or so times) and not the other way round.

    “Punctuated equilibrium” the late great pale stale male Georges Cuvier (recte Küfer) already smoked in his hookah 150 years ago. Once you write genetic drift = f(population size X selective pressure(“advantage”) X number of generations) there is nothing “miraculous” about it.

    Fred …
    sit verbo venia, but that was a weak one.
    Throwing the classics around to sound erudite was pioneered by Marx, and like the proverbial breakfast it doesn´t taste any better the second time.
    Appeals to Dunning-Krüger, the oh-so-misunderstood secret genius oh-so-set-upon by the oh-so-ivory-tower high priesthood do not a scientific argument make.
    (There are enough sociological studies on the Däniken bunch already. As the Arabs say, camels drink from muddy wells also.)
    Leave evolution to the paleontologists* – with the exception of Gould, who had an axe to grind – and climate to the Quaternary geologists. ONLY observation counts.

    *About the only “outsider” worth reading is Manfred Eigen (“hypercycles”) and even he gets awfully vajrayana at times (= “Nobel Laureate´s Syndrome” 😛 ).

  21. @parabarbarian

    This was Sir(!) Karl Raimund Popper´s problem (“Das Elend des Historizismus”) so he is dug up by the creationists on every occasion.
    Paleontology is “not science” while ESP is? Hah!

    Never mind he was kicked to Canossa less than two years afterward 😀

  22. Realist 说:
    @Muggles

    Most arguments against evolutionary theory are religious…a pissing match that can not be won.

    • 回复: @The Scalpel
  23. Realist 说:
    @Marty Brokenhearted

    it was either darwin or baby jesus

    Darwin for me.

  24. Realist 说:
    @Tripps

    My opinion on it has always been that evolution is pretty much fact, rather than theory, in as far as species change over time, they definitely evolve.

    True, but you are dealing with religion as an opponent…and religion requires no proof, logic or intellect.

    • 回复: @Tripps
  25. @Chuck Hortler

    And yet this fervent follower and his Climate Cult conveniently always ignore Darwin’s other theory…’Survival of the Fittest.’

    If ‘extinction’ of various species is normal…then we when can’t bankrupt capitalism by saving polar bears, snail darters, and desert prairie chickens.

  26. Tripps 说:
    @Kim

    Of course there has, that’s a ridiculous claim. Certainly not generation by generation, the odds of any individual organism fossilizing is vanishingly small, but even human examples exist. Of course if you define your terms narrowly enough…. It’s on par with defining intelligence or consciousness as what humans possess, and then saying animals lack it.

  27. animalogic 说:
    @Chuck Hortler

    “revealed beyond any doubt that they’re [species] only adapting within the scope of their pre-existing genetic capabilities.”
    You have summed up “natural selection” well. And yes, it cant explain how species evolved into “new” species.
    Darwin did have an answer, but even he knew it was a dodgy one : he called it random mutation (of the genetic material of reproductive genes — remembering that these genes are locked away from general genetic mutation. The reproductive DNA must 本身 receive the mutation.
    As Darwin recognised, “randomness” is THE problem. The eye is a classic example. To move from a mere light sensitive set of cells requires a huge, monumental number of exact mutations. Changes must not only occur, but occur in the correct sequence. Remembering “random” we are faced with odds of everthing needed for an eye occurring randomly in the billions & billions to one. To believe it all happened randomly is a faith beyond even religion.
    I dont know how mutations occurred. Some punt for an “intelligent designer” ie a God.
    The theory i prefer (zero proof) is a kind of universal “will to power”. That is, matter, energy, everything that exists is in a constant drive to build, destroy, rebuild, ever onwards. This is the very essence of the universe, to ever seek more complex forms of expression. It has no “choice” either, it cant be other. (so i also tend to deny final entropy. Out of a collapsed universe, another will develop. Whether the exact same universe or not i dont know…but id like to hope not.)

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  28. Tripps 说:
    @Rex Little

    No, Chuck Hortler, I’m not familiar with the format here, I intended to reply to his comments

    • 回复: @Jus' Sayin'...
  29. Tripps 说:
    @Realist

    The Cognoscenti know the The Brothers Grimm is the only true book, all others are the work of the devil.

  30. St-Germain 说:

    Dear Fred, If you haven’t already, I suggest you read Kingdom of Speech before you uncork your next column on Evolution, whatever that weasel word may now mean. From a literary standpoint, it’s the most entertaining demolition of the modern Darwin religion that can be made with just common sense and without any microbiology credentials. Astonishingly. this icon-smashing book was penned by novelist Tom Wolfe (Bonfire of the Vanities, etc.) just a couple of years before he died.

    He takes aristocratic darling Darwin apart by channeling contemporary rival Alfred Russel Wallace, who came up with the identical evolutionary theory at the same time, only to reject its key premises as he grew older and wiser. Then Wolfe opens fire on revered media “genius” Noam Chomsky, who tried to shoehorn the signature human attribute of speech into the Darwinian evolutionary doctrine only to be forced to recant and abandon his ambitious linguistics project.

    If you take evolution — as Darwin did — to mean 1. a single primitive ancestor of all animal life, 2. gradual differentiation into myriad forms and species over geologic time, and 3. the emergence of higher forms driven only by natural selection helped by random but somehow ever-favorable genetic mutations, then you get a good snapshot of the prevailing Myth of Progress in the Victorian age.

    The sudden Cambrian explosion of numerous sophisticated animals with no known antecedents fatally wounded that assumption. Then came DNA. Darwin would have been rational enough to rethink his model, had lived to see the relevant discoveries of the past 150 years. Lesser intellects who still call themselves evolutionists today have been mainly engaged in backfilling. The modern deification of Darwin means their scientific careers and grants depend upon that.

    • 回复: @Jus' Sayin'...
  31. @animalogic

    Well put as usual 😉

    The “epigenetics” drivel is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
    (Of COURSE these things happen, but … )

    However the eye is a bad example. The full-fledged camera eye independently evolved at least twice (fish and cephalopods) and every intermediary step is both documented and functional – nothing to see (heh) here …

    – From Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to Ilya Prigogine to the Fourth Law proponents there have been loads of brilliant speculations … just don´t get lost; I recommend the first, as he was both a paleontologist and most directly addressed the topic at hand (trigger warning: He does get somewhat teleological).

    • 回复: @animalogic
  32. UNCBlue 说:

    Your discussion with your friend is similar to my discussions with a democrat about corruption in politics.

  33. Be careful when someone start talking about “transitional fossils” not existing. The reality is that plenty have been discovered. One recent example is pakicetus -> aetiocetus -> modern gray whale showing the progression of the nostril moving from the front of the skull to the top of the skull. Another example is a remarkable sequence of fossils tracing the evolution of part of the jaw joint in the early synapsids to become the bones of the inner ear in modern mammals. AFAIK, no one is sure of exactly why this happened but the fossil evidence is that it did happen.

    Nevertheless, to the committed creation-doubter (or whatever they call themselves these days) each intermediate fossil just creates two more gaps in the fossil record. I suspect that if scientists could provide a video of the entirety of evolution from the ur-organism to all modern species the serious doubters would not accept it. They will always find some tiny little excuse to deny the whole of the evidence.

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  34. TG 说:
    @Kim

    Yes, the evolution of the vertebrate eye worried Darwin as well. However, there is a natural progression from photosensitive organelles in single-celled bacteria, to ‘eye spots’, to pinhole-camera eyes, to eyes with translucent coverings, etc., where the intermediate forms are indeed useful, and at least for the eye, the evolutionary record is plausible (if not certain).

    Granted that there is a lot that modern evolutionary theory has trouble with, indeed, but it’s still a pretty good theory. Certainly at the micro-level evolution DOES exist: as any animal breeder can attest. The evolution of an entirely new enzyme, or something major like the entire DNA encoding/transcribing process, is certainly much harder to explain as it would appear that a lot of complicated parts would need to come together at the same time or nothing would work at all. OK, science doesn’t have all the answers. But it has a lot of them. The genetic record of modern organisms sure seems to indicate that they are all related with different degrees of separation depending on when they (apparently) forked off from a common ancestor.

    One also needs to understand that us mere humans have trouble with what is called “deep time.” The entire Earth, for billions of years… it’s beyond our imagining. You are so certain that a very rare event could not have happened even once, in all that time and space? Consider also: at least by modern theory, unicellular life arose fairly quickly in the history of the earth, but it took billions of years for complex multicellular life to arise. It wasn’t automatic: billions of years across the entire earth, for just one fluke genetic event… without which we wouldn’t be here.

    And if you consider the anthropic principle (we would not be here noticing this if life had not already arisen here), you need to consider not just the earth, but the entire universe for all of time. The number of random combinations of molecules across all this time and space… it starts to become plausible that even a very very unlikely event could occur, at least once…

    • 回复: @anonymous coward
    , @Anna M
  35. TG 说:
    @Kim

    A human working to satisfy their own needs is indeed not blind to their own needs – but according to pure market theory, they are indeed blind to the effects that satisfying their own needs has on the entire economy and the entire society. That is the classical view. You can take it up with Adam Smith.

  36. MadFiddler 说:

    Otro excelente comentario, antiguo amigo. Me recuerdas nuevamente la inquieta curiosidad que nos mostraste a mí y a mi hermano en nuestra juventud.

    No es necesario ser “conservador” para observar que la regulación por el gobierno por parte de supuestos “expertos” no produce resultados esperados, ni resultados más óptimos que simplemente dejar que las personas realicen sus transacciones sin la intromisión constante de burócratas gubernamentales y sabios ungidos.
    Solo considerando la estructura teoretica de la economía, la noción de que un ser humano en el lapso de su vida puede abarcar y dominar todos los factores que afectan el resultado agregado de cientos de millones de intercambios y negociaciones de un día, o cientos de miles de millones (“BILLIONS”) de transacciones por un año, es absurdo al pensar. Si bien ciertos aspectos pueden reducirse a probabilidades estadísticas, existen influencias y consecuencias que son profundas, pero más allá del cálculo de cualquier humano.
    Mientras tanto, los eventos continúan demostrando que somos ignorantes y colosalmente equivocados en muchos supuestos. Creemos que somos de alguna manera MÁS INTELIGENTES y mejor informados que los humanos, por ejemplo, hace cien años, o unos mil años, o diez mil años. Sin duda, nuestros descendientes tendrán idénticamente la misma ilusión sobre sí mismos. Pero aunque tenemos registros más extensos y muchos humanos sobreviven hasta su décima década en el planeta, no somos individualmente más inteligentes de lo que hemos sido nunca.
    Bueno, Dentro de cualquier marco de referencia cósmico, no estamos mucho más arriba en la escala de percepción y función cognitiva que el paramecio. Se puede argumentar que hasta que nuestras vidas, cerebros y órganos sensoriales tengan un rango y capacidad de muchos órdenes de magnitud mayores, continuaremos tropezando pensando que somos Maestros de todo lo que encuestamos. Necesitamos un Canuto moderno, para recordarnos que la Realidad no se somete a nuestras elecciones de palabras, o deseos o ilusiones. Si no el escepticismo, entonces se necesita un poco de humildad.

  37. @obwandiyag

    That you mention “punctuated equilibrium” just goes to show that it is actually you who “have no idea what evolutionists believe or disbelieve”.

    Eldredge’s and Gould’s hypothesis has been thoroughly demolished at this point. It’s become an embarrassing historical footnote, as for that matter has Gould himself.

    • 谢谢: nokangaroos
    • 回复: @obwandiyag
  38. @Tripps

    You haven’t replied to Fred’s comments. You’ve just penned a pathetic, baseless and thoughtless ad hominem attack. Now you appear even more foolish attempting to defend your original nonsense.

  39. Don Tyler 说:

    Fact One: Which is beyond dispute, the world and the life upon it exist. It is an observable fact

    Fact Two: We know a previous organism, typically called PARENT gave rise to these particular life forms either by cell division, or recombination of DNA (Prokaryote, Eukaryote) Once again known from observation

    Fact Three: We know some geologic layers found all over the world have particular types of fossils and do not include millions and millions of types of others, like 99% of all those which exist today (the number is probably closer to 99.999%) Once again an observable fact

    So we know what exist today, we know how they came into being and we know there are geological layers where they do not exist

    So what we see in the total geologic record, rather than particular layers, life forms appearing that were not in layers below in what is called the geologic column

    So if you don’t like evolution as the explanation, that’s fine but it does not change the FACT an explanation is needed

    And when one considers the fact we can repeatedly take the DNA from what is considered a lower life form and splice it into a higher life form, to make GMO foods, shows they have a common origin

    Observable, repeatable FACT

    你的解释是什么?

    Keep in mind the ONLY possible explanations for the life forms which exist today coming into existence are spontaneous or graduated or in simpler terms, they appear fully formed with 100% of the same DNA which they have today or generations, over time, have only a percentage of the same DNA as those parents generations ago

    One other thing to keep in mind, every organism is an accumulation of cells. Each of these cells in a particular organism have an identical copy of the DNA which is in all the others cells in its body, but some cells function as brain cells, others as liver cells, muscle cells, skin cells, so on.

    All life has DNA with the EXACT same proteins (except viruses with RNA and phages)

    Every cell in an organism has the EXACT same DNA but has become cells which are more different from each other than most species are from each other

    We have built a very complex system which mimics many things we do in life with only a digital system of ones and zeros.

    DNA is using four things for its code, so instead of needing eight bit, sixteen bit, sixty-four bit it can contain vastly more information in its encoding.

    The evolution I have seen in my life time with computers is beyond my imagination.

    If we do create AI it may decide using a four code system is vastly more efficient, mix and match DNA from all organisms on EARTH and create a super organism which does not age, regrows limbs and organs, can live in space without a space suit, take a full nuclear blast’s radiation (note the Tardigrada phylum in the animal kingdom) because gene splicing shows it is all reusable code, just like computer code.

  40. @St-Germain

    “The Kingdom of Speech” is a great read, filled with provocative and interesting ideas. As regards the linguistic element, I’d suggest a followup, reading Berwick and Chomsky’s “Why Only Us: Language and Evolution”, which so far as I know is Chomsky’s latest revision of his Minimalist program. It helps to have some background on Chomsky, since his entire career has involved Chomsky making major revisions to his past theories on language while denying vehemently that he has done so. As background I’d suggest reading up on Piraha and Daniel Everett’s research on this language, which he claims is a counterexample to some of Chomsky’s earlier theories. Chomsky basically ignores this research arguing that it has no implications for his linguistic theory, or perhaps more accurately evolving linguistic theories.

  41. Beeg 说:

    Fred-I was wondering if you have actually read Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. It’s a really thick, dry book. I have tried and will probably chip away at until I finish. I’ve read maybe 10% and one statement he made really stuck with me. He says right up front that he is not suggesting that this is the only mechanism for speciation but is just one possible explanation.
    I think a lot of people blame Darwin for things he didn’t really say or assume he had beliefs that he didn’t have. I’m guessing that 99.999% of the people who demonize him have never read his work.
    Love your rants, Fred. Keep up the good work.

  42. Anon[690]• 免责声明 说:

    There are, I should say, theories about how DNA evolved from RNA, and so on. Not that it matters when dealing with someone like Fred Reed. Yes, pure natural selection is not the only thing that affects genetic change. The theory can be tweaked, but not thrown to the wayside. That is how science normally does it.

    Fred Reed is a tough-talking southern boomer. His manner of argument is emotional and pathos-based, like the generation of uneducated Southerners he comes from who rely entirely on charisma and extroversion to convert people to Christianity, or to their political beliefs. Though Fred has, through time, shed his love of Americanism that is common among his Virginian people, he has not shed his lack of critical thinking skills.

    Oh sheeeeiiittt, he called Charles Darwin “Chuck!” Argument won! Dominated! The low-IQ redneck is not capable of deeper argument or thought than this, and there is little evidence that Fred Reed is.

    Fred Reed, of course, denies that diversity matters. He saw a white person getting along with a Lebanese doctor, after all. Hence, there are no issues with diversity. Let’s damn all of the actual sociological data accumulated by Putnam; we don’t believe in science here, otherwise evolution would be easily accepted.

    • 回复: @Don Tyler
  43. @parabarbarian

    – There has never been any doubt the mammalian structure is far more efficient; three bones in the inner ear are orders of magnitude better than one.
    Heterodonty (read: chewing) necessitates a one-piece lower jaw and stronger (squamoso-dental) joint but enables homoiothermy, larger brain and live birth – therefore the quadratum and articulare had to go somehow, and it had to happen somewhere between Dimetrodon and Cynognathus.
    So far, so simple; the problem (even before there were “creationists”) was no one could imagine what a functional intermediary could look like.

    So thank God for Diarthrognathus 😀

    (and yes, no amount of proof will ever be enough)

    “Nothing is more odious than trying to argue by reason only to discover one is up against the Will.”

    –叔本华

    • 回复: @parabarbarian
  44. Don Tyler 说:
    @Anon

    Here is a shocking fact

    Even IF everything you wrote is true, which I doubt that it is, it does not add a single thing to our understanding about evolution one way or the other

    It is completely and utterly IRRELEVANT who Fred Reed is

    • 谢谢: nokangaroos
  45. JasonT 说:

    In an infinite universe, not only can anything happen, but everything must happen. It is still not settled whether the universe is infinite or finite, only that the observable universe is finite.

    Evolution is a form of boot strapping. With every successful change in genotype and phenotype, subsequent changes along a given vector become easier, and perhaps inevitable.

    Local complexity escalates non-linearly over time.

    • 回复: @Anna M
  46. @Chuck Hortler

    It isn’t so much that Evolution is a religion in and of itself, but that it is an article of Faith of the religion of Intellectualism. The Progressive Left firmly believe, in spite of being mostly Liberal Arts majors, that they understand things like Science, Engineering, and Economics that require the kind of mathematics they have been ducking since high school, and that this makes them Intellectuals.

    Of course, what it makes them is pig ignorant.

  47. I like proposing to the True Believers that Evolution is obviously the tool that the Creator used, and that creatures like Giraffes are evidence of something saying “I wonder what happens if I put ‘neck length’ to maximum?”

    There are just so many critters that look like what you would get if you put something sensible into a cosmic Photoshop and played with the sliders.

    • 回复: @Rex Little
  48. @Marty Brokenhearted

    Typical false binary choice given the proles by the elites.
    Trump or Clinton.
    Republican billionaires or Democrat billionaires.
    Capitalism or Communism.
    Both sides are created by The Usual Suspects.

  49. Rurik 说:

    People with smarts want to think there’s something more than just death. Final and eternal.

    They want to believe that they have a 灵魂, and that their soul transcends earthy b0unds, and soars to the heavens, and is immortal !

    That is one of the conundrums of being a human. We evolved over the eons to meet the needs of a challenging ‘eat, or be eaten, landscape, full of dangerous animals, and rival tribes, and a thousand other thing that could kill us, (we have no natural weapons, no claws or huge fangs or a gorilla’s strength) so we (those of us that survived the millions of years of struggle) became smarter and smarter, until one day we solved the problems of survival, and then had to time to ponder it all.

    Once we got to pondering, we were amazed at our ability to do so. And inwardly self-reflective about the nature and origin of our consciousness (soul).

    It never occurred to these early philosophers, that their souls just might be the quality of an ape-like critter’s mind that had evolved to be human and became self-aware. (that’s also one of the main reasons people resist the idea of evolution. They are positively repulsed to the core, that they’re somehow related to an ugly, grunting, hairy ape – tho we share 98% of their DNA)

    Anyways, since now we’re self-aware, we don’t want to think that it’s just all those highfalutin words like synapses and dendrites and corpus callosums doing their thing, which makes it seem like we’re all little Gods with immortal souls, because look at us! We can talk and build cool shit, and use tools and other stuff, like write and read books. We build bicycles and can ride them. That’s not merely an animal, (and there’s truth to that).

    Anyway, regardless of our mortality and humble beginnings, people want to think their souls will leave their dead bodies, and float to somewhere, just so long as it’s not the end. Then what’s it all for?!

    I’d say it’s all for Free Introduction life. To live it to the fullest, and make sure you check your karma, because if you’re an asshole in this life, you won’t have another to make amends. If you squander this life, hoping that you’re getting another chance, what if you’re wrong?

  50. If Evolution were true, you wold expect the different races of man who have developed in isolation from one another for thousands of years in different biomes and climates to have developed different physiologies, temperaments and mental faculties. However, it is the case that all mankind are in fact equal in physiologies, temperaments and mental faculties. This fact falsifies Evolution. Q.E.D.

    • 哈哈: nokangaroos
    • 回复: @JasonT
    , @Don Tyler
  51. JasonT 说:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    You have it completely backwards. Homo sapiens did not evolve separately in different biomes. Current Homo sapiens come from a common stock in one biome about 500,000 years ago and evolved as races into different biomes since then. There are indeed genetic differences today between the races of Homo sapiens, but 500,000 years is a blip in geologic time, and ‘thousands’ of years is infinitesimal on this scale, so the races of Homo sapiens are more similar now than different.

  52. IvyMike 说:

    达尔文主义和进化论是真正的生物学家在其领域前沿进行研究的主题,对于原教旨主义者、哲学家和哲学家来说,这些都是成熟而有趣的话题,这些都是这个疯狂世界中的重要 F。 进化过程是现代生物学理解的基础,而不是一种信仰。 也许那是错误的,我不知道,但正如弗雷德所说,有真正的顶级科学家(Behe 不是顶级科学家,他是政治黑客和欺诈者,并且是研究生物学家中一些嘲笑的对象)谁质疑它,顶尖科学家提出问题,然后进行艰苦的研究,这就是科学。 有趣的是,我们都觉得有能力批评进化,但没有人选择化学和物理。 然而,我将把物理学踢疯了,想知道现在是不是新爱因斯坦和新物理学的时候了,因为我们已经意识到宇宙的 90% 是由我们看不见摸不着的暗物质组成的,而且不知道它是什么。 在我看来,量子物理学只能解释 10% 的现实,不太好。
    只是关于智能设计的一个想法,简单是好的设计的核心,所以无论设计什么宇宙时空,人体都是真正的戈德堡(鲁布)傻瓜(确实是不可简化的复杂性!)。

    • 回复: @Anna M
  53. Scott Math 说:

    Hi Fred! Isn’t it a strong possibility that the complexities you mention that indicate non-logical progressions in evolution are mutations that adapted well? And to go into an area that I don’t know much about, but as a mathematician is interesting, didn’t Darwin describe “survival of the most adaptable,” in general terms, hence more a philosophy than scientific theory? Evolution has taken quantum “leaps,” over the years, from what I’ve read; what are the current models on that? It seems the arguments of people impassioned for or against evolution are just religious issues with the arguers. btw keep these interesting articles coming!

  54. Henry Adams, grandson of John Quincy, assisted his father, the US Ambassador to Great Britain, during the War Between the States. From Adams autobiography-

    “Henry Adams was a Darwinist because it was easier than not, for his ignorance exceeded belief, and one must know something in order to contradict even such triflers as Tyndall and Huxley.
    他感觉自己就像十个人中的九个人一样,对进化有着本能的信念,但是他对自然的关注比对不自然的选择的关注要多。
    自然选择导致自然进化,最后导致自然统一。 这是一个巨大的进步。 在统一的条件下,不间断的进化使每个人都满意-除了牧师和主教; 它是宗教的最好替代品; 安全,保守,实用,彻底的普通法神。 这种适用于宇宙的工作系统适合一个年轻人,他刚刚帮助浪费了五或一亿美元,或多或少地浪费了一百万条生命,以对反对它的人实行统一和统一。 这个想法在其完美方面太诱人了; 它具有艺术的魅力。 统一和统一是哲学的全部动机,如果达尔文像一个真正的英国人那样宁愿回到它里面来-后世到达上帝-而不是像斯宾诺莎一样从它那里开始,那么方法的差异只能教导道德上的意义。达到团结的最好方法是团结。 到达的任何一条路都很好。
    从低到高的稳定,统一,不间断的演进似乎很容易。
    因此,有一天,当查尔斯爵士来到美国使馆询问有关在美国如何正确认识他的“原理”时,年轻的亚当斯发现没有什么比建议查尔斯爵士告诉他说些什么自己可以做到这一点更简单的了。
    亚当斯尽可能地思考它,在查尔斯爵士的理论中什么也看不到,只有纯粹的推论……他发现翼龙以来,他发现的生命进化不比从修道院以来发现建筑中的进化。 他所能证明的就是改变。

    All this seemed trivial to the true Darwinian, and to Sir Charles it was mere defect in the geological record. Sir Charles labored only to heap up the evidences of evolution; to cumulate them till the mass became irresistible. With that purpose, Adams gladly studied and tried to help Sir Charles, but, behind the lesson of the day, he was conscious that, in geology as in theology, he could prove only Evolution that did not evolve; uniformity that was not uniform; and Selection that did not select. To other Darwinians–except Darwin–Natural Selection seemed a dogma to be put in the place of the Athanasian creed; it was a form of religious hope; a promise of ultimate perfection. Adams wished no better, he warmly sympathized in the object; but when he came to ask himself what he truly thought, he felt that he had no Faith; that whenever the next new hobby should be brought out, he should surely drop off the Darwinism like a monkey from a perch.”

  55. animalogic 说:
    @nokangaroos

    谢谢你的回复
    Could you elaborate on your views of the basic concept of “random mutation” ?
    I believe (ie dont 知道) that random mutation had a part to play…but is it a mere “appearance” we use to basically say we are not sure how one species can evolve into another ?
    谢谢。

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  56. @Realist

    Examined in fine detail, nothing is solid. What we perceive as “matter” is nothing but a collection of attractive and repulsive forces. From a certain perspective, we are nothing more than holograms. What really is a “charge”? We have no idea. All “fields” extend to infinity. In that sense we are all overlapping entities. There is no discreet “existence.” It makes one believe that we are something else’s simulation. But what created that “something else?” Questions we can never answer. I believe I will have a nice lunch -tastes good, gives me a warm, contented feeling inside – heaven.

    • 哈哈: Realist
  57. In the universe of “existence,” everything that is possible — exists. We exist because we are one possibility. All other possibilities also exist even though we might not perceive them. The number of possibilities is unfathomable.

  58. 受过教育的人避免讨论进化论,因为这是一个非常政治的话题。 问题在于我们过去与海豚有关。 然后我们爬出水面,在所有四个腿上走了一会儿。 然后我们开始直立。 第一代“智人”是亚洲人。 然后是怀特。 然后是布朗。 最后,布莱克。 人类的DNA并不完美。 每次新出生的婴儿,都会丢失一点DNA。 这被称为遗传衰变。 这就是为什么白人先变棕色再变黑的原因。 黑度是遗传崩溃的迹象。 是的,在布莱克之后,下一阶段实际上是大猩猩。

    但是,我们如何向黑人儿童解释他们的DNA崩溃了? 这并不容易,所以信息要保密。 如果知道真相,那么黑人就会大发雷霆。 他们会声称这是一个人为的故事,旨在使黑人看起来很糟。 但是遗传衰变是非常真实的。 实际上,没有理由将更多的黑人带入世界。 他们没有什么可提供的。 但是,一些知道真相的黑人认为,将黑色DNA与白色DNA混合在一起,以便每个人都能从中受益。 这正是旧南方奴隶主的所作所为。 但事实证明,混合白色和黑色DNA并不能造就好男人。 它只产生了比普通白人少的东西。 因此,这没有任何意义。

    但是黑人不会轻易放弃。 因此,新计划是检查每个人(白人或黑人)的DNA,然后指出每个缺陷。 这将使白人相信每个人都必须进行“ DNA疗法”才能健康。 但是,这种DNA治疗只是一种伪装的尝试,目的是破坏白色DNA的合法性。 毕竟,白人如何为自己的种族,文化和传统感到自豪? 当他的DNA有超过一千个缺陷时? 他唯一的选择将是支付更好的DNA费用。 而且由于黑人也需要更好的DNA,因此两个种族最终将平等。 一个有缺陷的人的星球,所有这些人都必须服从国家。

    • 回复: @The Scalpel
    , @parabarbarian
  59. @nokangaroos

    Just clarifying.

    I don’t doubt that the mammalian ear is more efficient than the reptile ear. However, I am just a dumb ‘ol engineer and I don’t believe evolution must progress toward any particular goal. Evolution happens to a group but selection happens to the individual which leaves little room for teleology. I was emphasizing that not knowing the environmental pressures and genetic changes involved does not negate the fact the fossil record indicates the bones did migrate inward to become part of the mammalian ear.

    A this point it is just plain silly to deny that evolution happened. The big questions are the mechanisms involved. I think it is a seriously limited perspective to believe that God or Aliens did it but maybe it make them happy.

    OTOH, if someone thinks that evolution works by whirlwinds assembling 747s then the creationists have successfully misrepresented biology and sold him a mess of pottage.

    • 回复: @Rurik
    , @nokangaroos
  60. @Ron B Liebermann

    Too bad there is not a “WTF?” button.

    • 哈哈: Rurik
  61. @Ron B Liebermann

    In my mind I am wrapping that in a <sarc/> tag. 🙂

  62. nickels 说:

    Science is, generally speaking, garbage.
    Extrapolation from measly datasets and projection of neo-pagan mythology.
    I consider ‘science’ the fraud department of Engineering, which is an actual discipline.

  63. Rurik 说:
    @parabarbarian

    A this point it is just plain silly to deny that evolution happened. The big questions are the mechanisms involved. I think it is a seriously limited perspective to believe that God or Aliens did it but maybe it make them happy.

    ‘the mechanisms involved’

    How did the original DNA molecule come to be?

    They’ve created amino acids in laboratories, by recreating the atmospheres and conditions they think existed some four billion or so years ago, on Earth. But just having the amino acids floating around in the Archaean eon’s soup, does not anticipate how they were able to ‘assemble themselves’ in such a miraculously complex way. (the double helix)

    But once you have the life-molecule (the building block of 所有 life on planet Earth), from there all things flow in a natural direction towards more and more complexity, to we modern humans at the moment, (whose vanity assuages itself that we are the ultimate culmination of existence, when the truth is, we’re but one short step on the long slog to something different).

    Indeed, what are the result of all the wars and migrations and genocides, if not a real-time evolutionary process playing out right in front of our eyes?

    When the Europeans landed on the American continent, their activities altered for all time the evolutionary struggle of some of the indigenous peoples, so that for the unlucky ones, their evolutionary struggle came to its dead end. As has been the fate of 99.9999999999999999999999% of all life forms. Just as it was for the mastodons and sabre toothed cats and giant ground sloths of North America, wiped out in all likelihood by human encroachment and hunting.

    本篇 is what interests me, because we’re now in the era of my people’s quiet slog into the evolutionary abyss. And like the indigenous peoples of ‘primitive’ cultures, lacking the weapons of their European conquerors, now its the people of the West, who’re slated for the evolutionary cul de sac.

    Already they’re gloating over what the new American will look like as a result of their ((tweaking)) with our genes.

    Evolution in process. Just like breeding dogs or horses or whatever. Natural selection, or unnatural, deliberate, human manipulation of the genetic code, either by wiping out the indigenous, or foisting genocidal wars or blending humans to suit your ((own tribe’s)) evolutionary agenda.

    In the last few centuries, the West was evolutionarily ascendant, because they had weapons and a cultural sophistication their rivals lacked. Today it the West that is being evolutionarily replaced, because it lacks the weapons of their evolutionary rival (unlimited fiat money, and a religion based on treachery, genocide and tribal ascendancy). We can even witness how our own Fred here, was transformed into Fredo, by those very forces, as he mocks those who’re dubious about the forced-blending of America’s gene pool, as ‘gas station louts’ who’re less than enthusiastic for the next evolutionary phase of America.

    Not a blond (Nazi) in the bunch.

    So evolution is happening right now, right in front of your eyes.

    On the Galapagos Islands, the forces at work were natural, and the changes to the iguanas and birds and others life forms, took many thousands of years.

    In modern times, the Dodo was wiped out in the blink of an eye. So too are thousands of species every year, (due to man’s blind destruction of their habitats). This is evolution in practice, as some species are gone for eternity, and others (rats, cockroaches, raccoons, hood-rats) are burgeoning, and morphing, and finding a niche, and thriving; in the ever changing environment. That’s how evolution works.

    You can even experiment on yourself, by looking at those pictures, and asking yourself how you 感觉 about them. Depending on your genetic code, there are going to be a lot of readers out there feeling something very satisfying about an aspirational America that resembles something that they, personally, deeply find to their sanguine approval. And conversely, there are no doubt some others (gas station louts, Nazis, ‘white nationalists’) who’re less filled with evolutionary ebullience. The feelings your experiencing, when you look at those pictures, are determined by your blood, and the DNA that flows in it- and are a real-time, personal experience of evolutionary forces alive and active inside your own genetic code. It is hardwired, for the most part, but can be tweaked by cultural (environmental) forces. (massive indoctrination from every “education” or “entertainment” venue you’ve been ((subjected to)), your entire lives).

    When evolution and religion is parsed, it’s very ironic when you consider the Bible. Because in many ways, the Old Testament is little more than an evolutionary guide book on tribal evolutionary strategy (slaughter all your tribal rivals with a netherworld vengeance. ‘God’ loves it when you slay them to their very last donkey and goat. (You can keep the little girls as you please, says the Old Testament ‘god’)

    That’s evolution, ladies and gentlemen- red in tooth and claw, and codified into human religion. 现代 human religion, it must be pointed out.

    具有讽刺意味的讽刺。

    • 同意: The Scalpel
    • 回复: @nokangaroos
    , @JasonT
  64. @animalogic

    To the best of my limited abilities …

    A single mutation is “random” in the sense the behavior of a radioactive atom is. Roughly 85% are dominant lethal (= no viable offspring) and north of 99% of the rest are harmful (= gross defects); these are immediately removed from the equation (“Darwin Award”).
    The surviving not-quite-lethal usually recessive defect mutations* are called SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms).
    If we zoom back to where the individual or atom becomes indiscernible (“Du bist nichts, Dein Volk ist Alles”) the behaviour becomes predictable, even simple
    (= Law of large numbers).
    Now, disabuse yourself of the notion of “species” – it implies immutability
    (I will come back to that).
    One step further back, and what we see is a quasispecies
    (= population, = “genetically isolated reproductive unit”),
    a cloud of mutants that surrounds a “dominant genotype” in every direction**.
    Thanks to sex the genes on this scale become kind of superfluid, i.e. the dominant genotype need not even exist in “pure” physical form.
    Now put a selective gradient to the system; the mutants on one end will be slightly better adapted, and the quasispecies will behave like a multidimensional amoeba, crawl up the gradient and consolidate around a new dominant genotype; there is nothing “random” any more***.

    – Under favorable conditions (unbroken geological record, large numbers, short generation time; Foraminifera are good) populations can be beautifully seen a-changing, splitting up, …
    where does one “species” end and the other begin****?

    * Under conditions of lowered selective pressure a population can accumulate quite a load; in humans this was first noticed 70 years ago – as soon as diabetes no longer was a death sentence, it started to proliferate.

    ** Only in this sense is “diversity” a good thing° – the mutant cloud cushions the dominant genotype against changing conditions. The “selective advantages” involved are amazingly small – as a rule of thumb, a 0.1% advantage becomes dominant in 200 generations.
    “Survival of the adaptable” goes a bit beyond that; specialization narrows the scope of available evolutionary paths, so in case of cataclysm those who think small, eat what they find and do not have to maintain appendages to battle other males or hoodwink females (intraspecific = sexual selection) are the ones who survive.

    *** I love it how the quasistationary disequilibrium we call “life” behaves alike on every scale.

    **** Whether the ten or so polygenic clusters of recent Homo merit the taxonomic rank of “species” is largely a matter of taste.

    ° In the commonly understood sense it means Darwin´s second criterion of falsification: No two closely related species can occupy the same biological niche for an appreciable (geological) amount of time.

    [phew] hope this helps 😀

    • 回复: @animalogic
  65. @parabarbarian

    I scrupulously avoid teleology – pardon if I failed to make that clear 😀
    To an engineer the analogy of “simulated glowing out” might make sense
    for how these things work – the result is neither predetermined nor perfect
    but close enough for government work .

  66. @Rurik

    Agreed on most every point.
    (Except amino acids do not usually form double helices; per the “hairpin” model the first functional complex probably looked something like a t-RNA)

    But those faces … is that bad photoshop? They all look somewhat difform to me.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  67. JasonT 说:

    Amino acids co-polymerize to form proteins, not DNA and not RNA. DNA and RNA are formed from the co-polymerization of nucleic acids.

  68. JasonT 说:
    @Rurik

    “Not a blond (Nazi) in the bunch. ”

    Not all blondes are Nazis and not all Nazis are blondes.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  69. Don Tyler 说:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    “If Evolution were true, you wold expect the different races …. ” – Hippopotamusdrome

    Your argument is a logical fallacy, circular reasoning, you are assuming the conclusion in the premise

    It can never prove false

  70. Rex Little 说:
    @C. S. P. Schofield

    I like proposing to the True Believers that Evolution is obviously the tool that the Creator used

    This is a seriously good point. The theory (or fact, if you like) of evolution invalidates all the religious creation myths, but it isn’t evidence against the existence of God. Quite the contrary. If one species arose from another by a series of incremental changes, and the odds of that happening by random chance is virtually zero, didn’t it have to be the work of a Creator?

    (I’m an atheist, so my answer to that question is, I don’t know, and you don’t either. But I do think there’s 东西 in the mix besides blind chance.)

  71. HallParvey 说:
    @Chuck Hortler

    There is no reason for someone to not believe the truth. We are not required to believe magical mystery stuff, but it is traditional. For many people, the Earth is still, and will always be, flat.

    Perhaps someone should develop some form of worship. Such as kneeling and bowing down while facing the Galapagos Islands at sunset and chanting “Hail Darwin” five times.

    To aid in motivation we have to come up with something better than eternal life. That’s already taken. So have the seventy two virgins. Most of the afterlife rewards are gone. Golden streets, pearly gates.

    You do realize that God invented evolution.

    Damn. Now I have to go confess my sin. Oh well, He forgives everything, doesn’t He.

  72. HallParvey 说:
    @Rex Little

    When you let go of the idea that the creator looked like an old man in a white robe and might look something like a burning bush, you can more easily allow your mind to explore the possibility that the creator exists. Or it might look like George Burns. Or whatever it wishes.

    Then, let go of the idea that the creator made a contract with humanity to provide us with eternal existence, and suddenly a belief in a creating entity is easy. And not at all outside the realm of sensory reality.

    Atheism is the rejection of a certain God. But there had to be something, or someone, or some force that created it all. Something outside of and alien to our cosmos. So alien that it is impossible for humans to understand.

  73. Don Tyler 说:
    @Rex Little

    “didn’t it have to be the work of a Creator?”

    From a logical perspective

    if everything is self existent there is no need for just one entity to be the creator of all

    But of the things we know they all have a beginning and likely an end, so cannot be self existing

    Is nothing self existent?

    If that is true then nothing would exist, yet we know things do exist

    Which leaves there has to be at least one entity which is self existing, has no beginning and no end

    As to whether this entity is a “being” has more to do with our anthropocentrism

    So just the existence of an entity which is self existent will cause things to work because they all are products of its existence and why we would think we are a part of it, because we are. It is the putting a face to it, and a personality that is us framing it in terms of ourselves

  74. animalogic 说:
    @nokangaroos

    Thanks for your excellent answer.
    Ill probably only need to read it 9-10 times more to be able to make an intelligent response…!!

  75. 你好弗雷德,

    I was surprised when you first started down that particular route. We can never know where We or the Universe come from. The only Certainty is that it was NOT Divine Creation.

    I think we must not get too rigid or myopic. Could it be possible that Elephants evolved out of Mastodons. Sounds reasonable. Recently they found a snake fossil which had two back legs. It would be reasonable to assume that at one point they had four legs and that our snakes evolved out of that blue print.

    My strongest argument would be that bacteria evolve to beat the antibiotics we try to kill them with.

    The concept sounds good. We can evolve one DNA entity into another DNA entity if we add or cut pieces of it out.

    I think the planet has had five mass extinctions. Five totally different systems evolved out of the building blocks each time. If Each time using the same building Bricks, it reached many different outcomes, they were surely evolutionary

    格雷厄姆

  76. Dual coding genes. A gene codes for one protein, shift the reading frame by one base, and another protein is made. How do the evolutionists explain that?

  77. JasonT 说:

    If you shift the open reading frame 1 base you can code for another protein, but that protein is likely to be non-functional. Therefore, the organism does not live, or has a poorer survivability, and does not, or is less likely to, reproduce. The organisms that are most likely to survive and reproduce are the ones in which the functional protein is made. That is basic natural selection, which is the basis of evolution.

    • 回复: @Gordon Shumway
  78. @Rex Little

    I would argue that evolution does not, in fact, ‘invalidate’ all creation myths, if you take into account that said myths were, for the most part, intended to be comprehensible by fairly primitive herders. Even if you presume that they are the Word of God(s), the Gods in question still had to communicate effectively with people with rather limited worldviews.

    Creation myths are parables.

  79. Easyrhino 说:

    有趣!

    The official US Fed Gov crackpot 9/11 physics defying fantasy narrative has far more obvious holes than the evolution narrative but Fred give more credence to the obvious 9/11 hoax than the evolution hoax.

    Say it ain’t so Fred!

  80. Easyrhino 说:

    有趣!

    The official US Fed Gov 9/11 narrative has far more obvious holes than the evolution narrative but Fred give more credence to the obvious 9/11 hoax than the evolution hoax.

    Say it ain’t so Fred!

  81. By contrast, if I waded into the deep waters of classical controversy, such as whether Claudius really was pulled from hiding by Praetorians and made emperor against his will, or whether this story was concocted to keep him from seeming an usurper in a city still unhappy with the demise of the Republic, I would be going far beyond my competence. So I don’t do it. In short, the foundations of most fields are accessible to anyone bothering to open a book. A deep understanding is not.

    I don’t think Fred’s dabbling in evolutionary theory has been productive. He’s a layman (OK)- but of what worth would have been his common sense “objections” to, say, basic QM like quantum tunneling, EPR or the very existence of wave function (what is it, anyway?)?

    These common sense objections are not serious stuff.

  82. @JasonT

    No such thing as a nonfunctional protein; what you are referring to is a nonsense polypeptide. Dual coding genes produce two different functional proteins necessary to the survival of the individual. So far 40 such genes have been found in the human genome.

    • 回复: @JasonT
  83. JasonT 说:
    @Gordon Shumway

    If “protein” is defined as must having a function, and a polypeptide defined as encompassing functional and non-functional amino acid polymers, I am in agreement. There are some examples of what you say.

    However, such fortuitous and not so common use of a single section of nucleotides in a DNA molecule to code for two functioning proteins in no way refutes evolution or natural selection. If the genetic code was ‘intelligently designed’, I would expect far more of such ‘duplication of effort’ in the genetic code.

    • 同意: nokangaroos
  84. Rurik 说:
    @nokangaroos

    the first functional complex probably looked something like a t-RNA)

    OK, I differ to your (obvious) expertise. But even so, is something like a t-RNA likely to develop randomly? Just by stirring the soup?

    But those faces … is that bad photoshop? They all look somewhat difform to me.

    I don’t know about all of them, but the gal in the first photo is apparently a real person. I think they all are.

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  85. Rurik 说:
    @JasonT

    Not all blondes are Nazis and not all Nazis are blondes.

    Sure, but if you eliminate all blonds from nations like Germany and England and France and North America, then you’re going to be reasonably certain you’ll ‘Never Again!’ have worry again about a Nazi-type resistance to your absolute domination of those lands. Not because the blonds are uniquely menacing, but because that phenotype is evidence of a racial strength, in lands like Germany.

    If they had no fear of the blonds of Sweden, then the blonds of Sweden would be safe from Barbara Spectre and her ilk. But such is not the case, and the Swedes too are suspect. And so the Swedes, just like all the rest, (((must))) be blended.

    Whether it’s Poland or Sweden or Canada or Germany, this

    scares the shit out of them. And if you could hear them talk among themselves, you can be 100% certain, they’re going to say things like ‘look at all those little Nazis’.

    • 回复: @JasonT
  86. JasonT 说:
    @Rurik

    To me it sounds like you are simply a racist.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  87. Rurik 说:
    @JasonT

    也许..

    define what that word means, and then we’ll see…

  88. @Rurik

    (Agreed on the “little blond Nazis” … when the teacher told my sister she now had to have a mulatto BF (not that she even knew one) “because everything else would be racist”, she was twelve; I do not wish to contemplate what her daughters are taught now.
    They will never feel safe – or adequate – as long as our blood walks the Earth.
    What spewed forth with Ilya Ehrenburg and Webb DooBoys has been a long time brewing.)

    – But back to the soup 😀

    All the basic ingredients are already present in colder, denser (“molecule”) interstellar clouds; hexoses (!), alcohols, aldehydes, simple heterocyclics, polyenes (!), probably glycin … over 160 that we know of (nonpolar ones do not give good radio spectra).
    They do polymerize under conceivable conditions e.g. adenine easily condenses from prussic (heh) acid.

    – The next discernible step is polypeptides and nucleic acids having the same absorption bands as the ozone layer (from Jeans Escape), i.e. everything else was killed by the UV and turned into radicals (“FOOD!!”).
    – Next (implied) individuation, i.e. there cannot be life without – wait for it – BORDERS 😛
    – The “hairpin” is just an idea the easiest way to saturate a single-strand nucleic acid is to fold it over; it will not be smooth but something to work with.

    So far, so simple. But HOW do the various feedback loops kick in and make the system nonrandom (“It´s ALIVE, master!”)?
    The one who delved most deeply into this was the late great Manfred Eigen.
    (Usually the late ramblings of Nobel laureates should be taken with a lump of salt, like Arrhenius´Venus “covered with tropical swamp, with civilization only on the poles”. This is the exception.)
    I found “Stufen zum Leben” comprehensive and readable but it seems that´s a minority opinion … the intersection between information theory and biophysical chemistry is marked “here be dragons”.

    (So how come I see only figures pontificate about it who shouldn´t have made it through middle school? Were creationists intelligently designed to make us look stoopid?)

    As Bardon and others have already noted, this is pointless. It is no longer a matter of debate nor even ideology – let´s get it over with.

    • 回复: @Rurik
  89. Rurik 说:
    @nokangaroos

    They will never feel safe – or adequate – as long as our blood walks the Earth.

    Emphasis on adequate.

    I tend to disregard most ‘history’ as agenda-driven lies, and look at how people act today, to get an idea of how they likely acted a hundred years ago and beyond.

    How many Germans or other Europeans are out killing or trying to kill Jews, (just because they’re Jews!).

    In America, we have one case that I know of, when crazed anti-Semites lynched the poor, innocent, persecuted Jew Leo Frank, for no reason other than crazed anti-Semitic hatred of Jews!

    Where are the hate-crazed Americans demanding the blood of Jews, ‘because they’re different!’

    Yet if you believe the official history and the media, the poor, persecuted, innocent Jew is, and has always been menaced everywhere by hate-crazed white, Christian anti-Semites, all trying to ‘gas the Jews’ for being different!

    When I look at the world today, I see one glaring example of racial supremacists trying to genocide others and steal their stuff. The same people who’re demanding the West commit suicide. The same people demanding Eternal Wars. The same people who use Hollywood and the media for a 24/7 propaganda campaign to demonize their victims as eternal ‘racists’. In fact if anything, it all seems like a massive case of projection. Of being accused by the people who’re trying endlessly to genocide you, of genocide.

    As they were working up plans to genocide Germans off the planet, they accuse the Germans of genocide.

    They used wide spread terror to steal the Palestinians homes and land, as they accuse them of being ‘terrorists!’

    They accuse Syria of ‘slaughtering civilians’!

    It’s constantly the kettle calling everyone else ‘black’.

    (I sure hope JasonT responds to my sincere query).

    – But back to the soup

    Yes, back to the soup!

    They do polymerize under conceivable conditions…

    …But HOW do the various feedback loops kick in and make the system nonrandom (“It´s ALIVE, master!”)?

    This would work so much better if it’d start at 15 seconds in (I couldn’t resist)

    .. because that’s it, isn’t it?

    生活!

    the intersection between information theory and biophysical chemistry is marked “here be dragons”.

    Yes, like theology and philosophy and evolutionary biology. Woe be to them that dare to tread there.

    figures pontificate about it who shouldn´t

    MEA过失

    But the debate is wrought with societal exigencies, and philosophical conundrums, if we’re to draw any wider, sociological or metaphysical conclusions from the science.

    No matter how the ‘hairpin’ managed to fold, either on its own, or though some agency..

    nevertheless, if it’s all a process of amino acids and ” aldehydes, simple heterocyclics, polyenes (!)”

    Then where does that leave muh “immortality” ?

    The immortal soul ?

    If the whole human experience can be reduced to so many chemical reactions and polypeptides?

    哪儿是 meaning of it all?!

    And this, perhaps is the last frontier. The last bastion of our existential crisis, in our modern world. Where AI is poised to replace our uniqueness as the only literate intelligence known to us.

    If our brains are nothing more than organic firestorms of astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and microglia, creating consciousness from billions of electrochemical signaling- up to 1,000 trillion synaptic connections..

    Then where is God?! and divinity and ‘thou shall and thou shall not’ – in all of that?

    Do you tell your children that they’re nothing more than aggrandized apes?!, with no more connection to the heavens than a bug?!

    It’s seems unseemly to do so. We’re so much more! (we insist).

    Still, it’s amusing to ponder it all.

    谢谢。

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  90. @Rurik

    😀

    (That was more a generalized cri de coeur than aimed at anybody we know)

    Talking about immortal souls an sheet makes me queasy
    (a sure sign of demoniac possession I´m told).

    Therefore, first the snotty version:
    Expecting the universe to give a crap is half a step this side of believing in the physical reality of what you “feel” – it´s a refusal to grow up.

    – Teilhard de Chardin is about as far as I am willing to go … he contradicts neither Darwin nor Augustinus, and that´s good enough for this bad Catholic.
    Then again, Haeckel says much the same from a purely atheist POV.

    Normative ethics?
    You correctly note the Talmud is Darwinian but not Kantian –
    the ethos of a parasite and not a Prometheus. But Kant argued that without divine position and sanction there can be no lasting Law … true is as much as Epikur failed with a non-theist version and every atheist attempt has ended in a bloodbath – I don´t know (I mean I THINK I know better, FWIW).

    What would I tell my children?
    Belief in God is good on many levels – deeper thought will yield no different results, and you will be happier if you do not eat from the Tree. But of course I expect you to seek knowledge …

    You have had a glimpse of what evolution is –
    there is still time to step back 😉

    • 回复: @Rurik
  91. @nokangaroos

    yessir.. i was very surprised to read ‘Hegel’ where ‘Haeckel’ should have been, and as for reversing the whale path… gollleee! Why do you suppose the otherwise terrifically astute Mr Reed would overlook these rather egregious errors..?

  92. Dr. Todd 说:

    So much has been written in the past 30 years by a wide swath of scientists from many disciplines that undermine the basic thrust of Darwinism – small changes, over time, lead to new species. The problem with that idea is that, though it might be true in the small scale – Darwin’s finches – the very nature of how DNA works seems to rule it out in a large scale.

    Enter the “experts.”

    Modern scientists are no more “experts” on science than anyone else. Almost every one of them is a specialist – they know a whole lot about A, and a little about B, C and D, but nothing about E. Thus, when they discover a challenge to Darwin in A, they assume the other disciples are picking up the slack. Only the “renaissance scientists” see the larger picture. This is why Gould created Punctuated Equilibrium, Flew became a Deist, and Hawkins became the High Priest of the Multiverse. Only they got a handle on the larger picture and none held onto Darwin as an explanation for the origins of life. Darwin captured the germ of how species adapt, but actually failed to answer the core question of his own book.

  93. Rurik 说:
    @nokangaroos

    克里斯·德·库尔

    more than you know

    It vexes me to no end, that our spirituality and ‘Wille zum Leben’ in the dying West, is rotting on the vine.

    Being replaced by globohomo, nihilism and celebrating! multiculturalism as our new sacrament and diversity as our new God.

    As we attempt to peer into the depths of what makes us human, and try to answer the ancient questions.. why are we here? I bleed at what’s being done to our spiritual truths, with Orwell ever looming…

    Christians are demanding that flaming homosexuals can and should be role models for the boys of the Boy Scouts of America- where, it seems boy-rape has been endemic (and covered up) for generations.

    If that’s the nature of Christianity today, then what’s left worth preserving?!

    And without a religion, what do we tell our children, is the meaning of it all?

    Expecting the universe to give a crap is half a step this side of believing in the physical reality of what you “feel” – it´s a refusal to grow up.

    I agree, and that works for us cynical adults. But what about your eight year old daughter, when she asks you if there’s a God? Because she wants to know if her beloved pet, who just died, is going to heaven. At what age do you tell her to ‘grow up? 15? 20? 30?

    What would I tell my children?
    Belief in God is good on many levels – deeper thought will yield no different results, and you will be happier if you do not eat from the Tree. But of course I expect you to seek knowledge …

    Something like that I guess..

    I’ve been wondering if it wasn’t possible for a new kind of religion. Something that will resonate with Christians and incorporate its traditions, but lacks the suicidal, masochistic pacifism of Christianity, as it manifests today. Something that can incorporate science and archeological truths, and yet hails to our deep spiritual needs as a species. (yes, I know that is a wrought word ; ).

    That is my ‘cri de coeur’ to the universe, and to all the good folks out there, (a whole hell of a lot smarter than moi), as to a solution to what ails us, in this age of AI and Eternal Wars, and the suicidal slog into oblivion that my civilization and Christendom is currently engaged in. And the Christian leaders singing their hosanna\$ to the zio-globohomo

    There’s got to be another way!

  94. Be ye, then, consoled by the knowledge that none of this is new – and the (paleo)conservatives still don´t grok it; a few years ago a certain Gaius Iulius C. faced the same quandary (freefall in birth rate, civic virtue and temple attendance),tried to tackle it fiscally, and failed.
    The only applicable case of successful reversal was, of course, the Twelve Years … propped up on external adversities you do not want to have.
    There´s a German saying about the too well-fed donkey taking a fancy for thin ice – there is no profit under the sun.
    (As a matter of fact read Ecclesiates again – it´s profound)

    My as-yet-and-probably-forever-unborn 8 y.o. daughter will know where the fried chickens come from – though maybe not yet how to properly cook roof rabbit
    [meow] quiet, silly fuffy.

    – The following is impossible to wrap in a linear narrative so please bear with a few discordances …

    I swiped the basic idea from Heinrich Karl Erben, paleontologist and philosopher of science – once you regard religion as an extrasomatic adaptive trait, all kinds of things drop into place:
    It is an excellent way of providing guidance and comfort to the Many, and the Law serves as a kind of Constitution against the whims of the 1%; it does not even matter terribly WHICH one as long as it is neolithic – the Law is near universal …
    I see black churches reach back to the Osiris/Isis/Horus myth (especially attractive to them as it involves a golden pipi 😛 ); no matter how laughable their superficial (Afrocentrist) motives, they are onto something:
    普遍的新石器时代原型,非自然出生、牺牲和复活、赋予法律的植被神(=“Demetric Phase”Bachofen 1869)。
    Sound familiar? 😀

    The Law is also universal and simple: Work the land, do not lie, steal, torture or fornicate (the significance of the latter point is a bit hard to convey to the yoof until you realize the purpose of the Law is to curb intraspecific aggression – CIVILIZATION, baby!)
    Erben boiled it down to 11 commandments – but I digress.

    It follows effortlessly that neither the Red Sea pedestrians (as actively ANTI-neolithic) nor the carpet worshippers (as pre-neolithic syncretist) are in the possession of “identical rings” (sorry, Gotthold Ephraim).

    “Christianity” has written us off – just look at where the money is extracted and where (“growth markets”) it is invested – they are a freaking corporation!
    When a “religion” is no longer (aye, counter-) adaptive, it has lost its raison d´etre.

    The only way to salvage Christ´s legacy is the Marcionite heresy – throw off the Old Testament deadweight altogether – combined with Augustine´s “rationes seminales” (as the only way to reconcile theism and science, if you so insist).

    The guiding principle is the same since the neolithic revolution: Make things thrive.
    “What is the essence of Mazdanism, o Ahura Mazda?”
    “How to mightily grow corn, o Spithama Zarathustra!”
    “Where the woman thrives, where the children thrive, where the cattle thrive, God rejoices.”

    Streamline it a little, make it less cerebral, appeal to the parts people usually think with …
    and you will draw in everybody and his mama from the Gretta zombies to the Church of Jesus Christ Aryan Nations.

    And get all the groupies 😛

    • 回复: @Rurik
  95. William 说:

    里德先生
    After you’r sarcastic ad hominem attack of you’t attacker by referring to that writers lack of academic
    credentials relative to “evolution.” Well, let me tell your something. I have credentials. I graduated
    from Girard school in Phenix City, Alabama. I did not study the biological, chemical, physical elements of Darwin’s theory, but you’r arrogant list of chemical terms that you deliberately included,
    (after reading selected parts of a science book) to show your own scientific intellectual smarts while
    satirizing writer in question — is that a clever way to hide you’r “ad hominem” attack –? Anybody can
    look up words that most people don’t know, but it dont really prove that you are smarter than the
    writer you so cleverly attack. Fact is, borrowed terms from some science textbook or paper don’t prove nothing. Other than these “hard words,” (phrase used by Dr. Johnson), you don’t give any
    real collusion of your own academic credentials.

    [更多]

    Fancy words to showboat a “ad hominem” attack on someone who can’t respond. At least he can’t
    respond and get printed. You have all the power of printed things.
    Now I don’t pretend to have complete science knowledge of “evolution.” But I don’t think you do
    either. I make no pretence of kknowing whether or not evolution is correct or not. I take no position
    on that here. But I will say that you’r statement that evolution theory has gone 161 years without
    being questioned is flat earth wrong. There have been many books and papers written questioning
    evolution. Maybe you need to do some real research. Maybe try a library insted of google.
    More papers have been written arguing against evolution that Carter has liver pills.
    Again, let me say that I have no opinion on the question. I am just questioning your clever responce.
    Show off your knowledge of big words. I can (with a little help from science books) overwhelm you
    with the sophisticated paper I wrote for publication on the subject of Einstien’s of time and space.
    Don’t show off your smarts. Those big words mean nothing layed out without context.
    Journalists are sometimes excellent writers, but I never met one that could me things actually meand
    something. Turns out that journalists are excellent writers, purveyors of all sorts of things they know
    nothing about. Plus —- well, I don’t like to do this but it’s necessary — if they do know something,
    they will deliberately with knowledge aforthought twist things up so that what they write comes out
    as a big lie. That’s right. Journalists lie. They lie like dogs. Cur dogs. Theyhave no compunction
    about about writing lies about anything. For example, Mr. reed, tell us about Palestine. About Rachel
    Corrie, the American girl who was run over by an Israeli bulldozere. Or tell us about the deliberate
    Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which killed and wounded many American sailors. Our great leaders
    chose to do nothing. They would rather let Israelis kill Americans or Arabs all day rather than confront the powerful Israelis who have all the modern weapons that the US could find to give to
    the primitive, brutal Israeli soldiers shooting unarmed civilians like shooting fish in a barrel.
    I just wish I could be on the Palestinian side of the fence supporting the oppressed people of Gaza.

  96. …growing doubts among scientists and mathematicians over aspects of Darwinian evolution…

    Pretty sure scientists and mathematicians always knew that Darwinian evolution is bunk. It requires a Universe of infinite size and age, which we pretty much always knew isn’t true.

  97. @Tripps

    Not really sure how to respond to that mish mosh.

    Try responding with facts.

    So Galapagos finches are all one species again?

    ‘Species’ is arbitrary. You can subdivide dogs into a thousand ‘species’ if you really cared; still, a dog is a dog and a cat is a cat, and never in the history of the world has there been a ‘catodog’ or a ‘dogocat’. (So-called common ancestors notwithstanding.)

  98. @TG

    One also needs to understand that us mere humans have trouble with what is called “deep time.” The entire Earth, for billions of years… it’s beyond our imagining.

    Billions of years is not ‘deep time’. Billions of years is a blip indistinguishable from a blink of an eye, mathematically speaking.

    For context: 6 billion is merely the factorial of 13, or e^22.5, or the number of possible 7-letter words in the English alphabet.

    这些是 numbers, mathematically speaking.

  99. Rurik 说:
    @nokangaroos

    Gaius Iulius C. faced the same quandary

    ahh yes. 透视。 One must keep things in perspective.

    The only applicable case of successful reversal was, of course, the Twelve Years …

    more perspective.

    ‘those inimitable ‘Twelve Years’. Indeed.

    (As a matter of fact read Ecclesiates again – it´s profound)

    piqued, I profess.. again’?

    annotated –

    1.Accept the human state as it is shaped by God’s appointments and enjoy the life you have been given as fully as you can.
    2.Don’t trouble yourself with unrealistic goals — know the measure of human capabilities.
    3.Be prudent in all your ways — follow wisdom’s leading.
    4.”Fear God and keep his commandments” (12:13), beginning already in your youth before the fleeting days of life’s enjoyments are gone and “the days of trouble” (12:1) come when the infirmities of advanced age vex you and hinder you from tasting, seeing and feeling the good things of life.

    https://www.biblestudytools.com/ecclesiastes/

    Sounds to me like Ecclesiates isn’t too far off from Epicurus

    When a “religion” is no longer (aye, counter-) adaptive, it has lost its raison d´etre.

    >>叹<

    And get all the groupies

    a buddy of mine, with whom I would occasionally lament the folly of the universe, would always come back to his sage and wise counsel; ‘Yes, it’s all going to shit, but be smart, and make it work for you’.

    I’ve enjoyed the exchange, nokangaroos. Look forward to more..

    干杯。

    • 谢谢: nokangaroos
  100. Anna M 说:
    @TG

    TG

    But it isn’t just once. To give rise to the millions of life forms would require billions of these miracles. And as for the odds, those can be calculated, regardless of whether you can wrap your mind around deep time. Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion took place over just a few million years.

  101. Anna M 说:
    @JasonT

    JasonT,

    I’m not sure where you got your idea, but I believe it is 180 degrees wrong. With every change in genotype and phenotype, further evolution becomes more difficult, not easier. The more complex a thing is, the more difficult it will be to make random changes that do not ruin it. Any change in one area has to also cause other things ‘move over’ in various ways.

    • 回复: @JasonT
  102. Anna M 说:
    @IvyMike

    常春藤迈克,

    不确定化学,但物理学充满了冲突,而且越来越多。 尝试阅读大爆炸或电宇宙理论的反对者。

  103. JasonT 说:
    @Anna M

    I agree that in a complex organism random changes are more likely to ruin the organism, which is why I stated that evolution “along a given vector” becomes easier, because any random changes that occur must be along that vector for the organism to survive.

    • 回复: @Bert
  104. There is a revolution brewing in the field of genetics, what keeps it in check is the threat of career loss and financial ruin. But those who have found financial independence speak out. Dr. John Sanford, the renowned geneticist who invented the apparatus to produce GMO crops wrote a book called Genetic Entropy. Not only is evolution wrong, it is the exact opposite of reality. 100s of millions of species have been going from perfection to imperfection to extinction in a very short period of time (thousands of years). It’s not theory either, with advances in the field of genetics, it’s science. It’s why the fossil record is so much more impressive than the living record. But it is contrary to the goals of the communist agenda. So this science will remain hidden.

  105. Bert 说:

    For anyone not a Yahoo, Stuart Kauffman offers a plausible pathway from non-living to life.

  106. Bert 说:
    @JasonT

    Good reasoning. You touch on the concepts of “constraint” and “orthogenesis.”

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Fred Reed评论
Personal 古典文学
不是汤姆·杰斐逊的想法
听起来对我来说就像是一所低级的美国大学
很长一段时间,大多数人都会厌烦地狱,但是我觉得自己很喜欢