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
达尔文的维吉兰特人,理查德·斯特恩伯格和传统的伪科学
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

我很抱歉。 我承认:我是坏人。 我保证我不会再写这个了。 好吧,永远不会。 太有趣了。 无论如何,这不是我的错。 我的童年使我做到了。 也许我吃了铅漆。

科学被认为是对自然的客观研究,因为它愿意在任何地方公正地遵循证据。 在大多数情况下,它都是以这种方式工作的。 对于充满感情的话题,事实并非如此。 例如,种族智力,性别之间的认知差异以及达尔文进化论中的弱点。 在这些领域做得很好的科学家,但得出了禁止的结论,将被赶出他们的领域,被学术和研究职位开除,被就业employment污,并毁掉他们的职业。

一个很好的例子是理查德·斯特恩伯格(Richard Sternberg)博士。 在佛罗里达国际大学获得生物学(分子进化)博士学位,并获得博士学位。 拥有宾汉姆顿大学系统科学(理论生物学)学位。 他不是一个轻量级的人。 从2001年至2007年,他是美国国家生物技术信息中心的研究员。 2001-2007年,史密森尼国家自然历史博物馆研究员。

当他在2004年授权出版物《地狱》时,地狱崩溃了 华盛顿生物学会会议论文集, 史密森学会的一个器官,在同行评审的文章中, 生物信息的起源和高级分类学类别 斯蒂芬·迈耶(Stephen Meyer)着。 它处理了智能设计的可能性,以解释传统理论无法解释的达尔文主义的各个方面。 在传统的达尔文主义的捍卫者(科学的政治正确性)中,这是一个严重的禁忌。

在史密森尼博物馆, 他被降职,拒绝访问他在工作中所需的标本,在敌对上司的指导下工作,失去了办公空间。 在确保仇恨的风暴中,两项独立的联邦调查得出的结论是,他已成为恶意治疗的目标。

可以预见的是,该机构驳斥了迈耶的想法“伪科学”:

维基百科: 新的 斯特恩伯格同行评审争议 涉及因在科学期刊上发表支持智能设计的伪科学概念的文章而引起的冲突,以及随后的问题,即是否遵循了正确的编辑程序以及是否经过适当的同行评审。

伪科学? 达尔文主义本身不符合伪科学的资格吗? 它完全没有证据。 对于大多数读者来说,这种说法似乎就像在说太阳绕着地球公转是一种幻想。 这是因为自从达尔文神话诞生以来,我们就受到了灌输。 但是看看事实。

有人告诉我们,生命是在原始海洋中偶然发生的。 我们知道那些海洋是什么吗? (知道,而不是推测,希望,这是有道理的,一定是,每个人都这样说)。 不我们没有。 我们是否知道这些海洋要构成生命就必须组成什么? 不。我们什至不知道我们的想法在演变吗? 否。有没有在实验室复制过生命的机会? 否。实验室中是否已构建了可代谢的可复制化学复合物,表明这是可能的? 否。机会出现是否可以证明在数学上是可能的? 否。达尔文主义能否解释不可简化的复杂结构的存在? 否。化石记录,尤其是埃迪卡拉安和寒武纪的化石记录是否支持达尔文? 不。

达尔文主义是一个聪明的形而上学思想,是在对此事几乎一无所知时形成的,并由热情的支持者强加于几乎完全缺乏证据的情况下。 不应该强烈相信您无法通过观察或实验来支持的事物被称为伪科学吗?

像基督徒一样,进化的热情源于一本神圣的书,讲述了他们的创造神话, 物种起源,两者都基于尽可能多的证据。 此后,他们假设有待证明。 由于达尔文主义者认为他们的创造形式具有不可挑战的真理,因此没有理由质疑它。 如果你 知道 它发生了,那么显然这在数学上是可能的。 数学可以在以后发现。 如果你 知道 生命起源于古代海洋,那么生命的起源就变成了一个细节。 如果你 知道 如果理论是正确的,那么任何怀疑的人都必须至少是错误的,因此是可忽略的,也许是曲柄,傻瓜或疯子。

一个从确定性出发的经典例子是达尔文主义对细菌鞭毛表面上不可减少的复杂性的反应,尽管可以引用成百上千种。 这是一个非常复杂的细胞器,将其任何部分都停止发挥作用。 达尔文的逐渐变化不可能改变它。 达尔文主义者说:“好吧,我们目前尚不确定,但有可能稍后我们会弄清楚它是怎么发生的。” 是的,我有可能连续赢得三场爱尔兰抽奖。 他们再次说,他们 知道 达尔文主义是正确的,因此将提供证据。 这就是所谓的“信念”,即对无法确立的信念。

正如一位朋友在另一种情况下所写的那样:“当许多看似声誉卓著的学者和其他专家在多年中提出了极其令人争议的断言时,它们被完全忽略或压制,但从未得到有效的反驳,是合理的结论。似乎指向一个明显的方向。”

就是这样许多具有高资历的研究人员对达尔文主义教义表示怀疑,声称达尔文主义不能解释自然的许多方面。 什么 向他们解释是一个单独的问题。 为什么对这种冒犯性行为感到疑惑?

传达对新达尔文主义(当前理论的正确名称)的疑问的一个困难是,包括高度聪明的人在内,很少有人知道这个问题。 从古代苏美尔文字的破译到鱿鱼的神经解剖学,世界上充满着深奥的特色。 很少有人会选择达尔文的缺陷进行仔细研究。

这对于达尔文主义者很方便,因为昏暗的人会相信他们在电视上听到的一切,而明亮的人通常会与他们的大脑有其他关系。 正如斯特恩伯格先生的案例所显示的那样,再次怀疑达尔文的科学家比知道说什么还多。

愤怒在说。 如果达尔文主义者能够证明ID的许多高度支持者是错误的,那么他们就会这样做,就是那样。 如果他们能够证明自己的主张是正确的,那么他们也将是那样。 但是他们不能(或者他们会)。

如果您遵循争议,您会很快看到模式。 一是达尔文主义者极力防御,暗示对自己立场的怀疑。 人们很少会对自己确实确信的某些事物的怀疑感到愤怒。 如果加州理工学院的物理学家对广义相对论表示怀疑,那么肯定会挑战他证明自己的理论。 他不会被束缚,贬低,被迫辞职,被控伪科学并被禁止发表。

对于新达尔文主义而言,不幸的是,确认的可能性随时间而减少。 逐年,化石记录变得不那么完整,仍然没有找到中间产物。 随着分子生物学的迅速发展,未能找到可能产生生命的化学上可能的事件链,就更令人信服地导致了一个简单的结论:没有一个结论。

出版物 理查德·斯特恩伯格(Richard Sternberg)

 

弗雷迪安偶尔拉丁导游!

美国有约五千七百万拉丁美洲裔居民,其中大多数是公民。 威利·尼莉,他们是美国的一部分。 考虑到许多美国人可能想了解一些有关他们的信息,他们来自哪里,做了什么,做过什么,他们的举止如何,偶尔的“旅行指南”会偶尔提供一些信息。 我的目的并不是要暗示拉丁美洲国家与日本或芬兰一样先进,管理完善,或者与中国一样充满活力。 他们不是那么遥远。 但是,它们都不是种族主义网站所希望的原始主义的地狱和堡垒。 所以:

哥伦比亚卡塔赫纳。 我不确定它是否会比芝加哥,巴尔的摩,底特律和其他美国崩溃的城市不利。 无论如何,天堂和拉丁美洲的事情要多于所有有关拉丁地狱漏洞的网络闹语。 大约一年前,Vi和我在哥伦比亚居住了一个月,住在波哥大的坎德拉里亚(Candelaria)地区。 这是古老的城市,遍布小巷,背包客(地球上最棒的树),街头犯罪和一流的餐厅: 埃尔·加托·格里斯(El Gato Gris),拉斯布鲁亚斯(Las Brujas),一步一步。 城市的其他地方都去了广阔的公园,博物馆和摩天大楼。

(从重新发布 弗雷德对一切 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 科学 •标签: 达尔文主义, 智能设计, 政治上的正确 
隐藏343条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Rurik 说:

    我们被告知生命是在原始海洋中偶然出现的。

    生命是如何来到这里的,首先是猜测。 没有人确切知道,我认识的人也没有人假装。

    我们知道这些海洋是由什么组成的吗?

    They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first ‘indigenous’ life form.

    我们可以断然否定这个理论是不可能的吗? 不,我们不可以。

    但是生命如何到达这里,与进化是否发生完全不同。

    提示: 一样。

    简单地考虑一下尼安德特人。 我们知道他存在。 我们有他的骨头和洞穴。

    但他今天在哪里?

    没错。

    适者生存。 有一天,当sleestacks返回地球时,发现在从原始种子进化而来的成群结队蹒跚的双足动物中,已经没有苍白的版本了,那是因为他们坚持不懈的意志无法战胜危险的,近他们的一些成员无限的贪污。

    And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a ‘scientist’.. to pretend to 知道 生活是怎么来的..

    ..it’s just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded – to presume to 知道 它是通过 ID 放在这里的。

    We can’t know how life got here, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful “intelligent design’. That’s just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be ‘scientists’ as well.

    Science can’t ‘know’ anything that can’t be put to the test or experiment. And since it’s rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth’s environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can’t know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

    但是进化正在你眼前发生,伙计。

    渡渡鸟已经不在了。 老虎、大象、犀牛和成千上万的其他物种在我们的有生之年被淘汰,为双足消费单位/税奴/炮灰腾出越来越多的空间。 随着其他物种的灭绝,这将是由于地面上的现实。 从字面上看,在大多数情况下,因为它们的栖息地被竞争物种占领。

    一旦你抛开偏见和虚荣心,这一切都是显而易见的。

    通常,对进化论的抵制,就是对我们与小猿有亲缘关系的想法的抵制。

    Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn’t so, doesn’t make it go away.

  2. nsa 说:

    Someone named Sternberg with dual phDs from the two best known and most prestigious centers of higher knowledge and enlightenment in all of Christendom, Florida International and Binghamton U? Who could fail to be impressed?

    • 回复: @dkshaw
  3. bossel 说:

    “Irreducible complexity” is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people it has to be concluded that you actually don’t care about probabilities & facts. So, it’s pretty useless trying to discuss with you.

    Orgel’s second rule applies.

    • 回复: @DH
    , @SputnikHQ
    , @GW
  4. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said. God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

    • 回复: @Logan
    , @DH
  5. Biff 说:
    @Rurik

    Nice chimp. Speaking of chimps here’s some fun facts chimps and humans are, as their genes differ by just 1.6%, whereas chimps and gorillas differ by 2.3%.
    Also, chimps are known to be 非常 territorial and violent. Ring a bell?

  6. Fred, after all these years thinking you were sane and smart as well as amusing I have to wonder because you keep on about some imagined Darwinism and avoid the key concept of natural selection whereby some variants of the living DNA bundles turn out to be more fertile than others in the given circumstances. That’s as near as you can get to having a logically necessary explanation for something we observe.

    Then you still want a place for a designer! Well make sense of that if you can.

    What do his/her/its designs tell you about the designer except that he/she isn’t any of the candidates yet invented? At least you could infer something about the Abrahamic chap, namely that YHWH didn’t like the Hebrews very much even if he was sorry that he had created the other lot at all.

  7. Okey-dokey, so evolution champs your bit? Fine, then intelligent design absolutely, positively, resolutely, undeniably, incontrovertibly must be how it was done.

    After you prove that — rather than exclaiming it must be true onaccounta because — rebuild and rewrite all biology, biochemistry, and zoology so that it conforms properly to the premise of intelligent design. Make sure the proof is rigorous, consistent, falsifiable, and that it explains everything better than evolutionary theory.

  8. @Biff

    The Hispanics are actually driving blacks out of California along with the Oakies, the Irish-Catholics, the Koreans, the Jews…and everyone else.

    如果另一个种族愿意杀死你,再多的领土也无济于事。

    问题是,就像迈阿密一样,黑人无处可去。 他们不太愿意搬到犹他州。

    他们被困,无法学习西班牙语。

    • 回复: @prusmc
    , @Biff
    , @Alden
  9. Ironically intelligent design theorists have conceded more to philosophical materialists than they realize. Philosophers since Descartes have argued that biology and machines operate according to the same principles. ID people just differ from Darwinian materialists about how biological machines came about; but they think about biology like materialists just the same.

    I don’t see what all this mental masturbation has to do with Christianity, however, because no Christian believes that machines have immaterial things in them which survive the machines’ destruction and exist forever in another realm.

    • 回复: @SamAdams
  10. utu 说:

    If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.

    You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin.

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Moi
    , @Rich
  11. Logan 说:
    @Mustela Mendax

    The Holmes quote is a fallacy. It assumes you have assembled all possibilities and that your analysis of their impossibility is without error.

    In reality neither of these is usually the case.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  12. Stevelancs 说:

    乔丹·彼得森博士相信上帝存在……

    他还认为人类与龙虾有很多共同之处,他认为这是进化的证据。

    也许这两个位置并不相互排斥?

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  13. Thanks Fred. Your commenters underline your points. Notably, the ad hominems.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  14. Thomm 说:

    看到像罗恩·恩茨(Ron Unz)这样精巧的迷惑与征服犹太人,一次又一次地绑架成百上千的白人Trashionalists是很荣幸的。

    第1步:创建WN使用的网站(因为他们永远无法自己建立任何网站)。 让任何和所有反犹太人的言论站在网站上,以使WN沾沾自喜,甚至鼓起勇气。
    第2步:招募WN所阅读的2-3位聪明的作者(Sailer,Derbyshire等),他们碰巧不擅长赚钱,因此他们只写很少的书。
    步骤3:几年后,开始推动西班牙裔美国人正常化(即使是非法的,尤其是非法的)。
    第4步:部署像Fred Reed这样的人来产生更多的混乱。

    它的工作原理……这是一位经验丰富的Confuse and Conquer Jew在不对称损耗战中的一堂课。

    罗恩·恩兹(Ron Unz)表示,约有95%的网站对此表示怀疑,即真正的区分是黑人还是非黑人。 我是同意他的5%(尽管我比他保守,因为我认为应该只属于技术移民,合法移民,而不是非技术移民,当然绝不违法)。

    现在,这是东西。 那些谈论奥斯威辛集中营,灯罩和肥皂的人在这里永远不会受到管教,但那些同意罗恩·恩茨的人则不会。 他甚至会对那些过于口头同意他的人感到生气,尽管任何和所有反以色列的内容都将受到欢迎。

    为什么?

    这是因为他认为这会从4-IQ WN的感知中展示出他的70D国际象棋游戏。 但是我保证它不能,因为典型的白人垃圾主义者远远低于智商门槛,在那他们可以观察到许多运动的碎片。 我可以详细描述Ron的计划(我完全支持该计划),而WN不会冒任何风险(更不用说离开此站点了)。

    我坚决支持Ron Unz的所作所为。

    • 巨魔: MBlanc46
    • 回复: @utu
    , @peterAUS
    , @Truth
  15. DH 说:
    @bossel

    Irreducible complexity” is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people

    链接请...

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  16. obwandiyag 说:

    I thought you people were all big “Science” Boosters!

    Oh, I get it. “Selective Science Boosters.” Only when it suits you.

  17. obwandiyag 说:

    Oh. Sorry I get it. You really are science boosters. And you prove it by asserting real hard.

    News flash. However it works, ntelligent design does not cut it, it doesn’t work the way Darwin said, and it doesn’t work the way you think it does.

    Hint. Lamarck.

  18. DH 说:
    @Biff

    And we share 50 per cent of our genes with bananas, which are known to be slippery almost Machiavellian creatures.

  19. Hoyle’s theory is that life is anywhere in the universe, that it begins in the universe, at the lowest possible temperature, under fierce ultraviolet radiation
    Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, ‘Life on Mars ?, The case for a Cosmic Heritage ?’, Bristol 1997
    Both chemical analysis done by Japanese on a comet, and by Philea, seem to support the theory, until now.
    Then there is the phenomenon that genetic material stores experience.
    Mice that had been trained to fear a certain smell transmitted this fear by sperm.
    Fish accidentally getting into a mid African lake changed at a speed that flabbergasted biologists.
    So, I’m inclined to think that life is anywhere in the universe, and that changes in species, the word evolution to me seems to be Darwin’s concession to christian thought, homo sapiens as the highest, whatever that may be, are not random, but occur on purpose.
    How this mechanism functions, if it exists, it will take some time before we find out.

    Latin Americans nor were, nor are, stupid.
    When Pizarro saw Mexico city, he was flabbergasted.
    Nowhere in Europe at the time existed so large a city, so clean, and so well organised.
    Medieval European cities at the time were dung heaps.
    The ground level of the Dutch city of Dordrecht rose seven metres trough throwing all garbage in the streets.
    Roman cities were well organised, sewers and clean water.
    Christianity saw the body as evil, so washing was not important.
    As a result epidemics.

    一本非常有趣的书是
    小林恩·怀特(Lynn White Jr.),《中世纪技术与社会变革》,牛津,1962年
    The role of iron in history is hardly realised.
    S America, Africa, and the Middle East hardly had any iron.
    In England it was found galore, near coal, with easy transport over water.
    Mines needed water pumps, a coal driven pump was the beginning of the steam engine, the industrial revolution could begin.

  20. Some of y’all miss the point that Fred is not denying that evolution of species is at play, merely that the path back to the ur-origin is not readily explained by the theory. That is a fair statement.

  21. j2 说:

    Fred, thanks for this article. You are again totally correct concerning darwinism. People who have not though about it deep enough confuse darwinism with evolution. Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism as you call the present evolution theory, is a proposed explanation of evolution. Evolution happens, the given explanation does not need to be correct. There are indeed many serious gaps and problems in all forms of darwinism. The birth of life from non-life is an open problem. I looked at a simpler problem, how new clearly different protein-coding parts of a gene (i.e., differs by many mutations) can be created by mutations and selection. The problem was that a protein stops working after very few random mutations, so it must become duplicated and a duplicate becomes a pseudo-gene that accumulates many mutations, but as it is pseudo-gene it is not under selection pressure, so this mutation-selection mechanism cannot work. It can make new alleles, i.e., genes differing by a few mutations only, and screen the best by selection. In that case the mutated gene does not need to become pseudo-gene (=gene that does not work).

  22. How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer?
    Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer?
    Did it evolve here on Earth, somewhere else, or arise spontaneously in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
    Does the concept of “information” have any meaning without the evolution of an analytical organism with an abstraction engine?

    Do we even know what we think evolved? No

    This question conflates knowledge with conjecture, hypothesis and/or theory, depending on what definition you choose for the word “think”. But let me try to answer it anyway….
    Yes – we do have some ideas about what first evolved, some backed with physical evidence.
    The2nd law of thermodynamics defines an arrow of time for the universe in terms of entropy, which means that the past grows increasingly fuzzy the further we try to look backwards. This limitation on certainty is something we know and must accept. Human history is a tiny fragment of the Earth’s history, but only a mote of that fragment can be reconstructed with much certainty, hence the difference between “pre-history” and “history”.

    So what kind of organism do we think (hypothesize) first evolved? The answer is….
    gas-guzzling microbes:

    Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life
    (Published 10 June 2013)
    Wolfgang Nitschke and Michael J. Russell
    [...]
    抽象

    Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws. Even if demands from both palaeogeochemistry and thermodynamics are respected, then a plethora of strongly differing models are still conceivable.
    Although we have no guarantee that life at its origin necessarily resembled biology in extant organisms,we consider that the only empirical way to deduce how life 五月 have emerged is by taking the stance of assuming continuity of biology from its inception to the present day. Building upon this conviction, we have assessed extant types of energy and carbon metabolism for their appropriateness to conditions probably pertaining in those settings of the Hadean planet that fulfill the thermodynamic requirements for life to come into being. Wood–Ljungdahl (WL) pathways leading to acetyl CoA formation are excellent candidates for such primordial metabolism.

    Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life. The proposed model furthermore better fits basic thermodynamic demands and palaeogeochemical conditions suggested by recent results from extant alkaline hydrothermal seeps.
    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract

    Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:
    http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/
    My crude idea is actually supported by oceans of living evidence. See for yourself.

    • 回复: @DanFromCT
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  23. utu 说:

    The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.

    • 回复: @utu
    , @BamBam Rubble
    , @peterAUS
  24. CBTerry 说:

    ‘Predictably, the establishment dismisses Meyer’s idea ass “pseudoscience”’

    Please don’t print this, just correct that typo!

  25. utu 说:
    @Thomm

    Thomm, are you making progress in solving the toilet problem in your home country?

    Even Ducks Don’t Like Indians
    https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/raceethnicity/south-asians/east-indians/

    • 回复: @Thomm
  26. m___ 说:

    No, Neo-Darwinism does not allow for replication experiments. Thus one could suggest it is an abstract idea, a suggestion, no more.

    That points to other thoughts, how does Neo-Darwinism scale as to the Bible, the Koran. Very well. How does Neo-Darwinism not allow for different suggestions to be judged only afterwards on their quality? It should allow for further suggestions at all means. Is intelligent design a better suggestion? Should scientists be discriminated upon being critical of Neo-Darwinism? Certainly not.

    Meaningful article as to mainstream openness of mind elaboration.

  27. Anonymous[184]• 免责声明 说:

    Fred hates America; thus, he pushes 2 themes:

    1. Mexican immigration.
    2. Anti-evolution. (because human bio-diversity, based on evolution, is the foundation of the alt-right’s anti-immigration policy.)

  28. tom 说:

    弗雷德
    Quite correct. The essential darwinism and neo darwinism notions are based on a long time and incredible random mutations. A belief in a non-darwinistic view of how biological entites emerged suggests some type of teleology whether deistic or otherwise. This is absolutely unacceptable to darwinists. Modern evolutionary biology would rather believe in a random tooth fairy rather than teleology. They have the simplistic dualism that if you don’t accept the darwinism nonsense you must be a creationist fruitcake. End of discussion.

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  29. Bringing up the origin of life on Earth is a logical fallacy and, as such, completely disingenuous. The theory of evolution does not say anything about how life arose. Its focus is on how species change over time, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.

  30. DanFromCT 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Compare with the talk by Rice University synthetic chemist James Tour, “Are Present Proposals on Chemical Evolutionary Mechanisms Accurately Pointing Toward First Life?” which utterly demolishes Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.

    The irrelevant ad hominems are always the first sign we’ve won on the merits of our case. Beyond that what they’re demanding in the name of “but this is science!” turns out to be methodological just so-ism, a form of quasi-religious anti-science in which literally everything confirms Darwinism on the grounds that Darwinism explains everything.

    The irony about the bluster coming from these rabid Darwinians is that a quick check of their photos shows they’re almost always angry, emasculated little men, who if there were any truth in Darwinism might be kept under lock and key to perform some useful work but othwrwise excluded from the affairs of real men. This much should be obvious, so the real question becomes who are behind the publishing and media platforms allowing these social misfits to abuse science for socio-political reasons.

    After all, even if they’re atheists as almost all are, they would concede that the notion of God is the culturally collective conscience of a people—proving the hatred expressing itself in these scurrilous ad hominems exposes an embarrassing grandiosity characteristic of a paranoid hatred of their male betters in general and of Christian Americans in particular.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @BamBam Rubble
  31. utu 说:
    @utu

    杰里·福多 (Jerry Fodor) 讲述心理学、行为科学等方面的进化(一般)故事。

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings
    达尔文之后的几年目睹了其他理论的显着扩散,每个理论都试图为自己的目的而选择自然选择。 进化心理学是目前最突出的例子,但例子不胜枚举。 它们或多或少地存在于所有行为科学中,更不用说认识论、语义学、神学、历史哲学、伦理学、社会学、政治理论、优生学甚至美学。 他们的共同点是,他们试图通过参考某某为我们购买什么,或者它会为我们的祖先购买什么来解释为什么我们是某某。

    “我们喜欢讲故事,因为讲故事可以锻炼想象力,而想象力对于狩猎采集者来说是件好事。”

    “我们不赞成吃祖母,因为让她在身边照看孩子在狩猎采集生态中很有用。”

    “我们喜欢音乐,因为一起唱歌加强了猎人和采集者之间(和/或狩猎采集者成年人和他们的采集采集者后代之间)的联系。”

    '我们说话是通过发出声音而不是挥手; 那是因为狩猎采集者住在大草原,在高高的草丛中很难看到彼此。

    “我们喜欢八卦,因为当健康取决于小社区的合作时,知道谁在做什么很重要。”

    “我们并不都说同一种语言,因为这会让我们更有可能与外国人杂交(这会很糟糕,因为它会削弱狩猎采集社区的联系)。”

    “我们不与我们的兄弟姐妹交配,因为这会降低与外国人杂交的可能性(这很糟糕,因为在其他条件相同的情况下,异质性对基因库有益)。”

    顺便说一下,这不是我编造的。 这些理论中的每一个实际上都可以在适应主义文献中找到。 但是,从逻辑上讲,这种解释必须在某处停止。 并非我们所有的特征都可以用工具来解释。 一定有一些我们拥有,只是因为我们就是这样的生物。 也许没有必要评论这些解释本质上是事后的(古尔德称它们为“只是这样的故事”); 或者,除了他们从自然选择理论中借来的声望之外,没有太多理由相信其中任何一个是正确的。

    无论如何,不​​管它的价值,我真的会惊讶地发现我注定要成为一个狩猎采集者,因为我对那种生活没有丝毫的怀旧之情。 我讨厌打猎的想法,我也不太热衷于收集。 我也不相信像狩猎采集者一样生活会让我更快乐或更好。 事实上,对我来说,这听起来像是绝对的地狱。 没有歌剧。 而且没有水管。

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  32. j2 说:
    @utu

    utu, you are completely right, I can tell it from personal experience, though not in Caltech, but it is the same in all respectable (thinking they are better) universities, I have been staff in two such.

  33. @tom

    解开谜团有两种方式: 侦探 或作为 神秘。

    达尔文进化论是侦探工作的产物,而目的论和宗教则是神秘主义者的产物。 Mystics don’t want mysteries solved,因为他们以宣扬无知为生,将无知视为重要而有价值的东西,值得敬畏、惊奇和崇拜仪式(包括源源不断的金钱来维持寄生的祭司种姓)

    侦探想要解开谜团,因为他们想了解因果关系。
    如果你了解某事是如何运作的,你就不再有神秘感。

    But a mystical life is contingent on the existence of a mystery. Mystics need mystery, and will preserve it at all costs. That’s why they hate Darwinian evolution, opposing it since 1859, despite all the oceans, mountains and forests filled with convergent evidence in support of 科学中第二个最成功的理论.

    • 回复: @AaronB
    , @Carroll Price
  34. Respect 说:

    Darwinism is english Godless ” science ” . I don`t believe in evolution , but seeing so may darwinians I believe in involution , presently there is an involution of the human beings .

    Cartagena de Indias , present Colombia , is a beutiful city . In 1741 the British Navy invaded Cartagena with a fleet of more than 30.000 soldiers ( including yankee troops ) and more than 200 ships .

    Cartagena was defended by only 4000 hispanic monarchy troops and 6 ships commanded by Blas de Lezo . If you go to Cartagena go to see the Castle of San Felipe which was the center of the spanish military defense .

    The english pirates were soundly defeated , they lost 1500 cannons out of the 2000 of the fleet , and about 90% of the soldiers . Spain lost about 1000 men and the 6 ships . Suck it darwinian pirates !!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias

  35. Anonymous[908]• 免责声明 说:
    @DanFromCT

    Irrelevant ad hominems: “Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.”

    The irrelevant ad hominems are always the first sign evolutionists have won on the merits of our case.

    And we thank you for your support, Dan.

    • 回复: @DanFromCT
  36. @Stevelancs

    乔丹·彼得森博士相信上帝存在……

    So what? My neighbor with the two dachshunds believes God exists. He’s at church right now. My grandmother believed God exists, and now she’s dead.

  37. @DH

    链接请...

    WTF? Are you in kindergarten? Just stupid? Just one who prefers ignorance and denial? “Irreducible complexity” has been quite adequately rebutted by competent scientists. If you don’t know how to use the Internet, put some effort into learning. Do your own goddamn due diligence, asshole. Do you always require other people to do the work? And then you believe what you get back? Get the fuck to work, clown.

    • 回复: @DH
    , @Merlin
  38. @DH

    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said. God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

    Your reasoning is somehow flawed.

    Convert it to the form of a syllogism. It asserts that what is true relies on proof that all other possibilities are impossible, therefore failing by infinite regression.

  39. @The Alarmist

    Some of y’all miss the point that Fred is not denying that evolution of species is at play, merely that the path back to the ur-origin is not readily explained by the theory. That is a fair statement.

    LOL. And “intelligent design” explains it? Essaplaina me some more, Luc-eee.

    • 回复: @The Alarmist
  40. @utu

    由于上述所有原因,ToE 是正确的,因为它必须是正确的,并且对此无能为力。

    What an idiotic statement (and series of preceding statements). The TofE is the best explanation that is based on evidence and scientific method. If you reject rules of evidence and scientific method, you are free to believe any theory you like. The Theory of Continuing Instantaneous Creation, i.e. that the entire Universe was created by your god of choice, one nanosecond in the past, is the best damn theory for your method of reasoning. Jesus too … one nanosecond ago … no Jesus, then instant Jesus already 2000 years in the instant past.

    Fellow, you either like to work with scientific method, and you do what you can with it, or you don’t. Your choice.

    • 回复: @utu
    , @Nicholas Stix
  41. @DanFromCT

    which utterly demolishes Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.

    Ah, agenda raises its hoary head, right there in your first sentence.

  42. AaronB 说:

    智能设计 必须 be viewed with hostility by the scientific establishment.

    Science is supposed to give humans 控制 – if Intelligent Design is true, it would mean there are other forces at work in the universe, humans must 分享 power, humans have less control than they thought.

    That goes against the whole Point of Science.

    Intelligent Design is a dead theory from the pov of science – if true, now what? How does that add to our power to shape our destiny? We just submit to a higher power?

    进化论 具有 resulted in an actual sense of increased power for us – we apply it in male/female relations, we apply it to population differences, we understand human behavior and motivation through its prism.

    It hardly matters that all of this is false – that it cannot explain male/female relations or population differences. It hardly matters that it gives us a false sense of power.

    科学 必须 prefer it. Only another theory that offers more power than Evolution will be even remotely considered.

    Intelligent Design cancels out science, neuters it, destroys it – it is not just another scientific theory.

    How can Intelligent Design give us more power?

    Mankind seems to need security more than anything. Our primary motivation seems to be fear.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  43. @Rurik

    The best theory I have heard on the evolution of man. As Lloyd Pye points out, Darwin “was a blowed up peckerwood”.

    • 回复: @Biff
  44. nsa 说:

    There is a fairly decent fossil record of human evolution. “The Fossil Trail” by Tattersall provides an overview of this fossil record. Note that fossils are not bones but rather mineralized bones, and can only form within a very narrow set of conditions. Actual bones rarely last a month or two in nature…….let alone millions of years.

  45. Once again Fred is ahead of the game with his great insight.

  46. AaronB 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    You make an interesting point.

    There are two theories about what leads to maximum human flourishing and well being and security.

    One is that we maximize our control of the environment we find ourselves in. The dream of science. This requires psychologically cutting ourselves off from nature, seeing ourselves as separate from it and in opposition to it, and trying to dominate it.

    Supposedly we will turn discover the laws that lead to our maximum emotional, psychological, and physical well being. Security and well being depend on us maximizing our power and control.

    The alternative, what you call 神秘, suggests that human flourishing depends on relinquishing power and control, an utterly radical perspective from the pov of science. The mystic theory says that we flourish best by collaborating with other forces in the universe, cooperating and living in accordance with them, that our security and well being depends on our not cutting ourselves off from the larger whole in order to dominate it.

    In the mystic system, not understanding some things is a necessary part of relinquishing control – simply because the faculty of discursive understanding is a limited tool that cuts us off from collaborating with the forces we need to be a part of in order to flourish. Mystery is thus a basic truth. Understanding is good, but limited.

    The modern scientific approach seems to have failed to deliver on its promise of making us psychologically, emotionally, or physically flourish. By cutting ourselves off from the whole, our emotional and psychological life seems to have become stunted, narrow and empty, and mostly about conflict and strife. Anxiety is at record highs. And physically, we are less robust than ever, prey to a host of diseases our ancestors knew nothing about, and increasingly obese.

    It seems seeing ourselves as independent fragments in opposition to the whole has not worked out.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  47. pB 说:

    “嗯,这看起来很有趣”

    *专心阅读

    “我相信这将是一篇冗长而详细的帖子,里面有很多值得花一天时间查找的内容”

    哦等等,只是弗雷德·里德再次试图说服我向南开放边界......

  48. nickels 说:

    The goal of the whole enlightenment project was to remove all moral constraints on appetite. To do so, it was necessary to destroy God, and all of the natural law, from which morality can be argued.
    Science denied Aristotle’s forms and teleology, reducing the world to a simple mechanical device, devoid of purpose and meaning (the Western paradigm anyway).
    Now man was free!!! The Aristocrats could rule with an iron fist, the sodomites could run free, the adulterers and usurers were free to scheme and debase themselves.
    Hobbes and Adam Smith took up where Newton clockworks left off, deriving from this mechanical system the further ideas that individual vice is actually societal bliss, and that feelings alone determine what is moral.
    But God was hard to get rid of and there was always a nagging doubt. How did humanity arise, if not by a creator? And the possibility of a creator meant the possibility of sin and condemnation.
    Enter the final puzzle piece in the picture of pure nihilistic meaningless, Darwin. He was not the originator of this ancient idea, but he laid out evolution at the right time and place.
    Now the God of reason and sanity was dead, and the God of endless appetite ruled forever! All was molecules, because science said so!
    Never mind that the materialistic viewpoint killed the very possibility of reason, as chemical reactions that form the brain cannot reason-they can only react. And so the whole chain of chemical reactions in the mind which led to this viewoint had no rational basis.
    Next enter the unfortunate disaster of the discovery of DNA, and the ability to actually study the ideas of evolution in a scientific manner.
    And the result? It doesn’t even begin to add up.
    But the God of appetite won’t be slayed so easily. There is too much to lose. The conclusion is sacred to the nihilist and the argument shifts ever to new ground to maintain the field.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  49. I’ve found that the most belligerent defenders of Evolution come from the UK. Not surprising since they’re defending a British pseudo-scientist (Darwin was a theologian by training) whose main activity during his college education was collecting beetles. Also interesting: despite their aggressive defense of Evolution and primordial soup, the Brits also commonly believe in alien life. L. Ron Hubbard set up his world HQ in Britain for a reason. British taxi driver George King also created a UFO religion out of whole cloth that now has 58 branches worldwide, most in the UK. I don’t know how you square 上的“物种起源” with little green men from Mars, but the Brits have found a way.

    • 回复: @Lurker
    , @CanSpeccy
  50. Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience? It is firmly based on no evidence.

    Fred back to his evolution bollocks, a subject about which he knows nothing except what is not the case. For a corrective, may I suggest:

    误解进化,或进化理论家可能是错的,但弗雷德·里德错了

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  51. DanFromCT 说:
    @Anonymous

    At least you’ve got some sense of humor about the ad hominem thing, which is more than can be said for most atheists—or am wrong about most atheists being unmanly, socio-sexually dysfunctional losers?

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  52. I think its fair to say that there are 3 essential, and largely independent, elements to “the” theory of evolution:

    (1) the origin of life (out of primordial soup), which for some miraculous, unexplained reason happened exactly 1 time

    (2) arrival of the fittest (i.e., how favorable mutations produce wonderful changes and entirely new species)

    (3) survival of the fittest (natural selection, e.g., white moths becoming black during the industrial revolution)

    For anyone with a strong feel for mathematics, the last (which most people seem to identify with “evolution”) is entirely trivial; the first two, on the other hand are, as Fred points out, highly problematic.

    Pasteur, after all, is heralded for having refuted the “traditional” theory of spontaneous generation, but it seems that in the primordial soup normal rules don’t apply.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
  53. @BamBam Rubble

    It’s no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @CanSpeccy
  54. @utu

    ‘…Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that’s the sort of creature we are…’

    This may be tangential to your point, but it’s worth pointing out that it’s often not so much a matter of some trait or practice being there because it serves a purpose but of it being there because there’s no particular reason for it not to continue being there.

    We have an appendix, not because we need it, but because not having it wouldn’t confer any striking advantage. It doesn’t usually turn poisonous, and if it does, likely as not we’ve already sired children anyway.

    Things can be like the old trampoline in the basement. They’re often there, not because they’re needed, but because there’s no compelling reason to get rid of them. If a society practices female clitorectomies, for example, it’ll likely go on practising female clitorectomies even if no purpose is served — just so long as female life expectancy and fertility isn’t dramatically affected. If a dog has a tail, it’s not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won’t benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  55. Respect 说:

    ” the survival of the fittest ”

    Darwinism is the father of nazism , or arian supremacism

    Of course darwin meant that the fittest were the anglogermanics ….. with darwin`s bioangloshit anglos felt legitimated to plunder and bomb the globe , and germans to kill all the slavs to steal their land

    chutzpahhhhhhhhhhhhh

    • 巨魔: Wizard of Oz
    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  56. log 说:

    Dear Mr. Reed,

    Darwinism begins with the twin assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. These are assumptions, and they cannot be proven by the nature of their claims. From these assumptions, Darwinism, or something functionally identical to it, must be true as a matter of logical deduction from observational reality. As one of its proponents put it, Darwinism “is the only game in town.” This is so because of these two assumptions, which are not value neutral.

    These two assumptions – naturalism (there exists nought but particles, forces, and the void) and uniformitarianism (the rules that we deduce govern the interaction of matter have been, are, and always shall be, the same everywhere) – are the philosophical foundation upon which all of scientific modernity is built. This philosophical foundation rules out any deity who might make a difference in observational reality.

    Design theory (aka “Intelligent Design”) is simply the consistent application of statistical rationality to claims. When applied to the claims of evolutionary biology, statistics concludes that “it most likely didn’t happen the way it must have if naturalism and uniformitarianism are true.” By its nature, however, statistics can’t make absolute claims, but only comparative claims of likelihoods. Thus statistics cannot disprove the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It can only undermine it. And that undermining – the parting of mind and heart – creates madness for those whose philosophies are built upon the foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism. But also rejecting statistics is to depart from that foundation as well, which also is madness.

    Therefore those who use statistics to test the claims of evolutionary biology against observational reality must be done away with, using the time-honored methods of ostracism, reviling, deplatforming, and so on. Their claims cannot be refuted without abandoning statistical rationality, which is self-defeating. So their claims must not be substantively addressed. Pointing fingers and mocking will suffice, for who wants to be mocked and scorned? Is the pursuit of truth worth the social cost it incurs?

    But consider – if statistics does undermine confidence in Darwinism, and if Darwinism is entailed by the joint combination of naturalism, uniformitarianism, and observational reality – then what is really being undermined is the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. And if there might exist more than simply particles, forces, and the void, and if the rules governing the interactions of matter are not uniform across reality, then we have no grounds for saying the Bible presents a false view of reality. There may indeed be a God who does things we can observe, a God of miracles, and Jesus Christ may indeed be real. The prospect of living forever in their society cannot be rejected on first principles if we are statistically rational, and so that prospect might cause us to revise our cost estimate of the pursuit of truth – and a great many other things.

    贾里德·利弗西

  57. Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours. To a cockroach I am a vengeful god.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @CanSpeccy
  58. 当阅读 物种起源, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

    Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term “natural selection” differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another’s way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the “fence-sitters” would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

    In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide 事实上的 evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the “happiness” of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

    Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that 不能 be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one’s own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and “necessary” concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

    The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that—for many people today and almost the entirety of the “educated” classes—it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as “democracy” forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a “Darwin Award.”

    Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

    • 回复: @The Alarmist
    , @peterAUS
  59. Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  60. @The Alarmist

    It’s no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

    It doesn’t even get close to a Hail Mary. It is a desperate play from theist ignorance.

    There is scientific method. There is logic. They provide many answers — so many answers … all well-founded, all verifiable, all directly observable through at least one method.

    Intelligent Design is silliness. Life is a product of Intelligent Design, you say? What about water, essential to life? Intelligent Design created hydrogen and oxygen, and the water molecule, right? Else, Intelligent Design … she no work for “life”, yanno? Get to positing bullshit like “Intelligent Design”, and you put yourself in an epistemological fix, all the way back to the presumed beginning of time. Intelligent Design provides all 47 elements crucial to human life — hydrogen and oxygen being just a start on THAT issue. Intelligent Design provides an environment where life can survive and continue. Intelligent Design provides a planet just close enough to, and just far enough from good ol’ Sol. And, damn, Intelligent Design provides that Sun, that moon, those stars, that galaxy, that Universe.

    All to justify and substantiate bullshit claims as to the origin of life.

    Enough nonsense. Bring forth a true modern age, and end superstition and ignorance.

  61. @WorkingClass

    Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours.

    Don’t be ridiculous. Intelligent Design requires the fiat power to create and perpetuate that which is Designed.

    Proving the existence of that fiat-capable thing is a real bitch.

  62. @Colin Wright

    If a dog has a tail, it’s not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won’t benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

    It’s because the tail does not prevent reproduction. The key to evolution is the survival of those fit to survive and reproduce. It is that simple.

    Every May, 10 billion mayflies hatch. Most die. One million survive to lay 10 billion eggs, which hatch the following May. Survival and continued existence of mayflies is that simple.

    “Fittest” was the wrong choice of word. “Fit” is correct.

    “Good enough” works every time.

  63. @jilles dykstra

    Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

    Worse, much worse. If anything puts Xtians in a murderous mood, it’s Creation Denial.

    How come there’s a gold stripe around your comment? Some kind of merit badge manifestation?

  64. @Intelligent Dasein

    Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory. Like the telephone, the theory of evolution has many fathers.

  65. prusmc 说: • 您的网站
    @Jeff Stryker

    I really don’t think the people of Utah want them. Of course this has not stopped the Fed’s and the religion base-federally funded parasite organizations : Lutherin, Methodist, Episcopal, Jewish and Catholic chairities from moving Congolese into Wyoming, Somalians into Maine and various Muslim refugees into Burlington, Vermont. Bernie does not need their votes he has more than enough.

  66. @CanSpeccy

    误解进化,或进化理论家可能是错的,但弗雷德·里德错了

    Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed, but 查村儿子痛风.

    How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  67. ‘…No. Has a metabolizing, reproducing chemical complex been constructed in the laboratory, showing that it might be possible? No…’

    It’s worth pointing out that this is just a variation on the reason God — and gods — were traditionally believed in.

    Do we understand how thunder works? If you’re an eighth century Viking, of course you don’t. Ergo, there’s a thunder god.

    I’m not convinced that that we cannot explain a given datum is sufficient evidence to conclude God exists. My dog probably would have been at a loss to explain how a car worked — most people would. It doesn’t follow that there’s a God and he made cars.

  68. @The Alarmist

    Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution…

    I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern 声望 of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

    I’m guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I’ve already said.

    • 回复: @AaronB
    , @BamBam Rubble
  69. Agent76 说:

    Aug 6, 2013 Evolution Vs. God

    听听来自世界顶尖大学的顶尖进化科学家的专业证词。

    •Peter Nonacs,加州大学洛杉矶分校生态与进化生物学教授
    •Craig Stanford,南加州大学生物科学与人类学教授
    •PZ Myers,明尼苏达大学莫里斯分校生物学副教授
    •盖尔·肯尼迪(Gail E. Kennedy),加州大学洛杉矶分校人类学副教授

    在科学方法的显微镜下,研究残留器官的证据,自然选择,第五位数字,棘背动物的相关性,达尔文的雀科和伦斯基的细菌,这些都是专家头脑中可观察到的证据。 准备动摇自己的信念。

  70. Agent76 说:

    This is another great video of conception and the processes in detail and more folk’s need to view and know.

    14年2011月XNUMX日-生育概念-形象化

    图像制作人Alexander Tsiaras分享了强大的医学可视化效果,展示了人类从受孕到出生乃至以后的发展。

    • 回复: @Simply Simon
  71. AaronB 说:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

    I think this needs to be the key point.

    At this late date, it hardly needs refuting anymore. We should try and understand what modern need it fills.

  72. @Intelligent Dasein

    I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle.

    LOL. Yeah, “refuted” via thundering declaration of phlogiston-stuff.

    Or something analogous. You theists have pontificated BS for centuries. After all, what else could it be BUT Yahweh, right?

  73. Lurker 说:
    @Bragadocious

    You have proof there is no alien life, why has this been kept secret?

    Btw I’m in the UK, I’ve never heard of George King or his religion.

    Just looked him up. Nope, doesn’t ring a bell at all.

  74. peterAUS 说:
    @utu

    Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism.

    对。

  75. peterAUS 说:
    @AaronB

    Have to say…..very good post.
    Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

    That science/mystic approach to…life/existence…..thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective.

    • 回复: @AaronB
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
  76. peterAUS 说:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    同意

    …while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and “necessary” concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

    and

    Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted

    至于

    ….and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune.Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

    not quite sure about “never” and “boredom”.

  77. Thomm 说:
    @utu

    While I am not Indian (only a preposterously stupid person would think I am), remember that your face was deemed as a suitable solution to this problem.

    Everybody wins, especially you, since you receive what you crave.

    Your face. Remember that, so that you don’t have to pose the same question ten times (given your low IQ of 70).

    呵呵呵呵呵

  78. Moi 说:
    @utu

    Challenging Netanyahoo is a bigger no-no and graver sin–also a heck of a lot more dangerous.

  79. “America has some fifty-seven million residents of Latin-American descent, mostly citizens. Willy-nilly, they are part of America. Thinking that many Americans might want to know something about them, where they came from, what they do and have done,”

    No Fred. We know approximately 22 million are illegals and will have to go back. The remaining 37 million will be divided along IQ/race and black Hispanics will have to go back. Puerto Rico has to be declared independent.

    Just because you married a Mexican woman, does not entitle you to bring in Latin America to make her happy.

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  80. Rich 说:
    @utu

    Funny thing is, Einstein didn’t discover the Theory of Relativity. It was published 2 years earlier by an Italian scientist named Olento De Pretto. Whether Einstein stole the idea or arrived at it independently is disputed.

  81. AaronB 说:
    @peterAUS

    Thanks, I’m glad you found something to appreciate in it.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  82. @BamBam Rubble

    回覆: 误解进化,或进化理论家可能是错的,但弗雷德·里德错了

    Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed.

    Thank you for your positive assessment. The reason for the particular mode of address is that it was written explicitly as a response to an earlier nonsensical effusion from Fred on the subject of evolution.

    至于,

    How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

    Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  83. @peterAUS

    Hear! Hear! Indeed.

    Fred’s really at his best when he tells us niggra stories.

  84. Cyrano 说:

    How do you call people that “believe” in evolution? – Evolutionaries. How do you call people that don’t believe in evolution, who instead believe in one stupid religion or another? – Contra-evolutionaries.

    I think that evolution makes a lot of sense. Evolution is basically competition and favoritism by mother nature – which wants only her good designs to succeed. To bash evolution because it can’t accurately describe how life begun is ridiculous. No conta-evolutionary has ever been successful at providing meaningful explanation of how life started either, that hasn’t stop anybody from believing in hundreds of useless religions.

  85. @Agent76

    Thanks, Agent 76 for posting this incredible video. Regardless what one thinks about abortion, the fact that millions of these complex structures called fetuses have been terminated before birth makes me feel that it would be infinitely better to prevent conception in the first place.

    • 回复: @Agent76
  86. Anonymous[428]• 免责声明 说:

    The brainless boomer strikes again!

  87. @CanSpeccy

    Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

    Sorry, poor word-choice on my part. How many commenters here are capable of accepting what you wrote?

  88. KenH 说:
    @Rurik

    The white race is becoming the contemporary dodo bird.

  89. Major1 说:

    Haha Fred, and those that link to him, sure know how to get the clicks, don’t they?
    Fred thinks that his “take no prisoners” style of writing frees him from the responsibility of making sense. If challenged on the stupid shit he says, he and his defenders hide behind the “That’s just Fred bein’ Fred” defense.
    Anyone who posits that ID and the TOE are equivalent because neither has all the answers is scientifically illiterate, or just a diehard apologist for religious creation myths.
    And anyone who uses the phrase “irreducible complexity” in a discussion of ID is at least 20 years behind everyone else. And is probably a recalcitrant pedant.
    Same old thing. Creationists, because they don’t know how science works, assail the TOE as faulty or untrue because every single gap in the evolutionary record hasn’t yet been filled in, or the exact mechanism of every facet of evolution hasn’t yet been elucidated. While offering zero proof of their own dogma. Where, exactly, are the state of the art laboratories where scientists are toiling to prove that ID is true and how it happened? Where are the landmark papers from these scientists? There is a difference between proposing, defending and proving your own theory and just unceasingly attacking someone else’s. Especially with the same tired, shabby arguments. Actual scientists know this. Ken Ham and Michael Behe do not. Fred sure doesn’t.
    And can we stop calling it Intelligent Design? It’s creationism with a different name. You can tie a pretty pink ribbon around a pig’s neck but it’s still a pig.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @DH
  90. @Major1

    And can we stop calling it Intelligent Design? It’s creationism with a different name. You can tie a pretty pink ribbon around a pig’s neck but it’s still a pig.

    Not to mention that, from a “design” standpoint, very little of it is “intelligent”.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  91. Biff 说:
    @Jeff Stryker

    When I mentioned territorial I ment war in general and the need for flags, but I guess you can throw in beaners with colors and drug turf as well. Migrants are a different story.

    • 回复: @Jeff Stryker
  92. Che Guava 说:

    Am always enjoying Mr. Reed’s articles on ID, although this one goes on an irrelevant tangent at the end.

    One of the fun facts is that, if life evolved on Earth, photosynthetic forms poisoned the place for the earlier ones

    Free oxygen is an unnatural state, unless photosynthesizers are making it.

    I agree with Fred’s quibbles, have read Darwin, Dawkins (I find the prnse in A Pilgrim’s Tale cloying at times, but return to it because of the many accounts of interesting life-forms), others, and see that evolution does exist (from their and other examples, from germs developing multi-antibiotic drug resistance, fruitfly experiments, etc.)..

    However, I agree with Fred, both the totally mysterious origin and many of the transitions of higher forms are not logically explicable by Darwinian evolution, sure many are.

    How did RNA and then DNA (the sequence I would favour from study of chem.) self-organise from the oxygen-free primordial slime? How did RNA create the much more elaborate DNA?

    Some transitions and creation of phyla, genera and species make no sense in a Darwinian sense, many do, some most certainly do not.

    Anybody who is well-read on the topic will have considered these many vastly improbable steps.

    Of course, geological time frames, so I love birds, and accept that they are the remnant of the dinosaurs, but they were starting from an established base.

    So many of the basic developments of new organs and abilities are so improbable , even in geological time spans.

    Also, to repeat myself, the origin is completely mysterious. There are four or five major theories, none verified, probably none verifiable.

    Any people who are intellectually honest will recognise the problems of standard evolution.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @CanSpeccy
  93. @Che Guava

    Also, to repeat myself, the origin is completely mysterious. There are four or five major theories, none verified, probably none verifiable.

    There’s no mystery. God made it. Nothing made God. God just is, always has been, by necessity. Anyone who doesn’t believe in God is intellectually dishonest. How can anything exist unless it was created? And, what could create all this? Only God. Therefore, there is a God, and He (note sexual orientation) has always existed. Eternal, immanent, etc. Only fools deny this truth.

    Any people who are intellectually honest will recognise the problems of standard evolution.

    I had no idea there was a non-standard evolution. Thanks for the tip.

    Any one who is intellectually honest might want to study the Wiki mini-series on evolution. Although, of course, any intellectually honest person knows it to be complete malarky. But, knowing what it is, how it is derived, how it is substantiated, demonstrated, and verified, will provide ample ammunition for the intellectually honest person to refute any sleazy, low-down, double-dealing evolutionists at parties, carnivals, beer bashes, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    • 同意: Che Guava
    • 回复: @Che Guava
  94. @Biff

    The Caribbeans did it to blacks in Miami and the Italians did it in New York in the early 20th century.

    Its nothing new.

  95. @BamBam Rubble

    Not to mention that, from a “design” standpoint, very little of it is “intelligent.”

    比照。 Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body.

  96. peterAUS 说:
    @AaronB

    我做到了。

    The key in all this is really just one simple thing: 平衡。
    Something we, humans, appear to be incapable of.

    It’s all or nothing, always.
    And, the most passionate (neurotic….?) take over the stage.

    To be honest (balance…) we have evolved in some way.
    Heretics, before, would get burned at stake (among other even more exotic ways of suffering).
    Today they simply lose their jobs.
    更好。

    • 回复: @AaronB
  97. @Che Guava

    Also, to repeat myself, the origin is completely mysterious. There are four or five major theories, none verified, probably none verifiable.

    Which in no way refutes the theory of Darwinian evolution. As I have pointed out in a critique of Fred’s previous gibbering about evolution, Darwin acknowledged that the origin of life was a problem entirely beyond the scope of his theory of evolution, which was concerned with the transition of life forms over the course of geological time, not the creation of life.

    Thus, Darwin wrote in the third edition of 起源:

    科学尚未阐明生命起源的本质(b)这一更高的问题,这一点是没有道理的。

    在 29 年 1863 月 XNUMX 日写给约瑟夫胡克的一封信中,他写道:

    it is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life, one might as well think of origin of matter (b).

    • 回复: @peterAUS
    , @Che Guava
  98. @Logan

    You don’t think she was seriously defending evolution do you?

  99. @nickels

    Enter the final puzzle piece in the picture of pure nihilistic meaningless[ness], Darwin. He was not the originator of this ancient idea, but he laid out evolution at the right time and place.

    Darwin was not a nihilist. He had originally expected to become a minister of the Anglican church. His theory of evolution was not, as you say, new. And indeed the mechanism of evolution that Darwin postulated, natural selection, was not new. Adam Smith, for example, in his 道德情感理论, talks of the consequences of behavioral traits or reproductive success.

    Darwin’s great contribution was as a naturalist of extraordinarily wide knowledge, who related this knowledge of biological diversity to 19th century advances in geology, thereby making the theory of evolution compelling.

  100. @Bragadocious

    I’ve found that the most belligerent defenders of Evolution come from the UK. … the Brits also commonly believe in alien life.

    Yes, as you are no doubt aware, Darwin was a great UFO-ologist and the founder of Scientology, to which church most British scientists belong — also Theresa May, and Tony Blair.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  101. @for-the-record

    (1) the origin of life (out of primordial soup), which for some miraculous, unexplained reason happened exactly 1 time

    (2) arrival of the fittest (i.e., how favorable mutations produce wonderful changes and entirely new species)

    (3) survival of the fittest (natural selection, e.g., white moths becoming black during the industrial revolution)

    For anyone with a strong feel for mathematics, the last (which most people seem to identify with “evolution”) is entirely trivial; the first two, on the other hand are, as Fred points out, highly problematic.

    As I have already pointed out, your Point (1) has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin explicitly acknowledged total ignorance of the origin of life.

    As for (2), there’s nothing miraculous about this. It’s actually been observed and carefully documented in nature.

    As for (3) it is, with (2) trivial or not it, the postulated mechanism of evolution. I guess the force of gravity, or the mass warping of space, might be called trivial, yet it is a key to the evolution of the universe. In fact, most of science, perhaps all, is pretty trivial once you understand it. It’s appreciating how “trivial” facts have amazing consequences that makes science so potent.

  102. @The Alarmist

    It’s no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far.

    Your comment is based on a ridiculous assumption that we know that there is no life in the universe except on earth. Of course we know no such thing. We don’t even know if there is life on Mars, although Martian meteriorites contain traces of what may be microbial life. Beyond our solar system, we have no clue and will not likely have any clue unless they radio in a message about themselves.

  103. AaronB 说:
    @peterAUS

    I do agree in my own way.

    But balance is far more profound than we give it credit.

    In my own way, I am some sort of Buddhist (although I don’t know what kind).

    And true detachment means neither rejecting nor pursuing, neither suppressing nor developing. Balance. The Middle Way.

    But apparently it isn’t easy – it requires not taking the world all that seriously.

  104. @Respect

    ” the survival of the fittest ”

    Darwinism is the father of nazism , or arian supremacism

    Yes, Darwin was actually Hitler’s father.

    But this notion of the survival of the fittest (did Darwin actually use that phrase?) is no more than a tautology. The actual mechanism is, to quote myself:

    Like begets like: cats have kittens, hens have chicks. However, due to various mechanisms, including, as we now know, mutation, chromosome abnormalities, and the happy intervention of sex, like begets like—but with some variation. Thus, in a litter of Dutch rabbits, nine are of a uniform and official chocolate brown, but the tenth may have a white lightning streak upon his nose.

    Here then is a basis for selection. In any particular environment, some individuals will possess a characteristic, sharper teeth, faster reflexes, better hearing, greater disease resistance, greater sex appeal, that results in their raising to adulthood more progeny than the rest of the litter. But because of the principle of “like begets like,” the characteristics of the most successful breeders will be at least slightly more common in the succeeding generation than in the parental generation.

    And so it goes, from generation to generation, the prevalent characteristics of a population tends to change. The rate of change depends on many factors: the mating preferences of the species; the availability of resources, food, water, nesting places, etc.; the prevalence of predators or disease. Moreover, when populations become divided into separate breeding groups, for example, by migration to separate islands, then depending on local conditions the course of evolutionary change will vary. On one Galapagos Island, the main food supply may be small seeds, for example, in which case small birds with small beaks will prosper, whereas on another island where the main food supply consists in large nuts, only birds with large and powerful beaks will prevail.

    Even if, as you seem to be asserting, recognition of that process led to the Jewish Holocaust, it is nevertheless how life actually evolves.

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  105. @WorkingClass

    Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God.

    Don’t worry about having to make the choice. 如上所述, Darwin explicitly denied any knowledge of the origin of life.

  106. @attilathehen

    You know…fifty seven minus twenty two isn’t thirty seven.

    • 回复: @attilathehen
  107. @The Alarmist

    Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory.

    No, the theory is simple-minded and ancient. Darwin’s contribution was to provide the proof. He was the world’s greatest naturalist who was also well versed in the then-new science of geology. He put the two things together, to show that life had changed radically over the course of geological time. After that, one had to accept either that God was a hoaxer who salted the earth with misleading fossils, or that organic evolution had occurred over hundreds of millions of years.

  108. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    ….Darwin acknowledged that the origin of life was a problem entirely beyond the scope of his theory of evolution, which was concerned with the transition of life forms over the course of geological time, not the creation of life.

    I am not quite sure that “Darwinists”, we know, got that memo.

    Any chance we can get a list of well known “Darwinists” agreeing with that viewpoint?
    You know, the guys who get paid by being “Darwinists”. Academia and such.

    Like, a tenured professor on elite university teaching evolution (or subject closely related) and acknowledging that God, Intelligent Design, or SOMETHING intelligent, created life on Earth.

    Say….. of those we can check/take a peek at/read about?

  109. DH 说:
    @Major1

    And anyone who uses the phrase “irreducible complexity” in a discussion of ID is at least 20 years behind everyone else.

    链接请...

  110. Let’s suppose that humans are the result of a special act of creation. We still have to explain all of the biological diversity that has developed in our species since that act of creation. If we look at physical traits, that diversity is much greater than what we normally see between sibling species. And why would this diversity be less for psychological traits? Most of them are just as heritable.

    So Fred’s journey into creationism has come to a dead end. Is cognitive ability lower, on average, among Mexicans than among white Americans? Perhaps it is. Perhaps not. That is another debate, and it’s irrelevant to the debate of special creation versus evolution. Fred should do a bit of soul searching about what he’s trying to prove and why.

    Do I have to spell out the sequence of events?

    1. White American man gets disillusioned with white American women. He marries a Mexican and moves to Mexico.

    2. Since his cultural background stresses not only honor but also abstract national loyalty, he feels honor-bound to defend not only his wife but also his newly adopted kinsmen, including the 57 million now resident in the United States.

    3. He thus feels personally insulted when Americans don’t feel the sort of solidarity with Latinos that he now feels. He especially feels insulted when some Americans bring up differences in cognitive performance between the two groups.

    4. So he looks willy-nilly for a counter-argument, and this search takes him to … creationism.

    Ironically, most Mexican Americans don’t feel the degree of solidarity with other Latinos that Fred feels honor-bound to have. Their main loyalty is to their families and immediate kin. Look at the last U.S. election. Most of them didn’t vote or they voted for Trump. Loyalty to abstract ideals, like national solidarity, is an Anglo thing.

    • 哈哈: AaronB
    • 回复: @DH
    , @KenH
  111. Of Darwinism, Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science has said

    I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite possible that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can ‘explain’ why it originated; for statistical explanation must operate, in the last instance, with very high probabilities. But if our high probabilities are merely low probabilities which have become high because of the immensity of the available time (as in Boltzmann’s explanation), then we must not forget that in this way it is possible to ‘explain’ almost everything. (Karl Popper, ‘Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Program,’)

    并进一步

    I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories. . . .
    Yet there is more to it: I also regard Darwinism as an application of what I call ‘situational logic.’ Darwinism as situational logic can be understood as follows:
    Let there be a world, a framework of limited constancy, in which there are entities of limited variability. Then some of the entities produced by variation (those which ‘fit’ into the conditions of the framework) may ‘survive’ while others (those which clash with the conditions) may be eliminated.
    Add to this the assumption of the existence of a special framework—a set of perhaps rare and highly individual conditions—in which there can be life or, more especially, self-reproducing but nevertheless variable bodies. Then a situation is given in which the idea of trial and error-elimination, or of Darwinism, becomes not merely applicable, but almost logically necessary. There may be a framework in which life would be possible, but in which the trial which leads to life has not occurred, or in which all those trials which lead to life were eliminated. . . . What is meant is that if a life-permitting situation occurs, and if life originates, then this total situation makes the Darwinian idea one of situational logic. (Karl Popper, ‘Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Program,’)

  112. allis 说:

    Three propositions:
    A people’s religion expresses the people’s culture.
    The ancient Greeks had an admirable culture.
    The religion of the ancient Greeks was primitive and foolish.

    One of the above statements must be false; I nominate the last one.
    The Greeks identified those who spoke the Greek Language as Greek.
    Languages are a social cement for human societies, acting like pheromones in insect and animal societies.
    Perhaps religions (or any other belief system) serve purposes similar to languages, and, like them are neither objectively true nor false.

    What deities, beliefs and rituals define our religion? What give us a sense of belonging? What inspires us? What gives our lives meaning? What is the organizing principle of our culture?

    I often wonder if it is not Money, which seems to function like deities did in former times. Like other deities, Money has no tangible “real” existence, but, also like other deities, Money also exists as a social reality.

    A new trinity of Money, Science, and Rationality seems to be the current religion, the expression of our culture. An appropriate dogma for such a religion would be The Theory of Evolution.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @BamBam Rubble
  113. DH 说:
    @Peter Frost

    Let’s suppose that humans are the result of a special act of creation. We still have to explain all of the biological diversity that has developed in our species since that act of creation.

    Sure. But evolutionism faces the same challenge. One thing is explaining why some people have red hair and others brown. A completely different issue is how oak trees, bacteria, whales and humans came to be. Evolutionism is not even close in explaining the latter.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Peter Frost
  114. @CanSpeccy

    Darwin did use the phrase “survival of the fittest” in title to chapter 4:
    Natural Selection; or The Survival of the Fittest

    Clearly he didn’t believe that it should be philosophy applied to human society in general. Let me prove that:

    In 1849, Anne [Darwin, 10 year old dauther of Charles] caught scarlet fever along with her two sisters, and her health thereafter declined; some authorities believe that she suffered from tuberculosis. In vain pursuit of help from Gully’s water cure, Charles Darwin took his daughter to the Worcestershire spa town, Great Malvern. She died in Montreal House on the Worcester Road, aged ten, and was buried in the Great Malvern Priory churchyard.

    In any case, evolution works not as a function of mere survival, but via 差异繁殖成功 of organisms best fitted to their environments. In other words, organisms with even a slight reproductive advantage will in short course dominate the gene pool of their kind.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  115. @Macon Richardson

    Abiognesis is NOT explained by the algorithm of evolution. Evolution explains organic diversity, not the origin of the first replicator.
    Your entire redundant post merely demonstrates your unwillingness to engage with what people have already stated dozens of times in comments on this page.

    But that’s how anti-evolutionists operate: by ignoring logic, reason, and evidence.

    Not one anti-evolutionist on this page has answered the question:
    who designed your hypothetical designer?

    • 回复: @Simply Simon
  116. Mr Reynard 说:

    I’m 75 & over 60 years ago, I told my Science teacher, that Darwinism was bullshit & that Darwin was a moron ??
    Shocked my teacher ?? Teacher got really nasty with me, then I told him that his nastiness must be descended from Darwinian monkey, & I’m not as upset at him, because I’m descendant from Homo Sapiens.. Man the Wise & a wise man doesn’t get upset at an inferior intellect ??
    Surprised, But he did really shut the f*** up ??

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  117. Anonymous[107]• 免责声明 说:
    @Fran Macadam

    Ad hominems…like calling people who accept natural selection “vigilantes,” amirite?

  118. @Mr Reynard

    “The teacher got really 讨厌 when I called Darwin a 白痴“, said the nasty little class clown. When an English teacher subsequently tried to explain what a question mark was for, the clown unleashed another torrent of abuse.

    roundworms:

    lovingly fashioned by skydaddy for the edification of creationists

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  119. j2 说:
    @for-the-record

    I add one more:

    (4) origin of consciousness.

    We can build robots and they do not have consciousness. Physics does not need consciousness in any of its formulae, but we know that we have it, all mammals have it, and probably also all birds. Birth of something we cannot repeat or explain and what is not needed is problematic. It suggests that our consciousness may not be the only one in the universe and removes the need to explain the origin of life with a mechanisms that does not require consciousness, because why, if there are some conscious beings, why cannot there be more of them. And they have intentions, goals. Goal-oriented actions much simplify the problem of reaching anything complicated and still working by non-goal-oriented actions such as a random walk. Consciousness actually implies that there is something more to the reality than is described in the formulae of physics.

  120. Anonymous[275]• 免责声明 说:
    @allis

    But money is the answer to everything.

    “Money is the answer for everything!” Ecclesiastes 10:19

    And as far as Evolution goes…

    “It is all decided by chance.” Ecclesiastes 9:11

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  121. Anonymous[275]• 免责声明 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Just like this guys says, “There are organisms all over this planet whose only mission is to dig a hole inside of you and to eat your fucking brains. Don’t talk to me how balanced, brilliant and purposeful and niche-ey all the crap is; that’s not a legitimate niche.” Of course, he’s critiquing atheists who paint a happy face on evolution.

    角斗士战争(图文内容)
    Philosophy of Inmendham
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

  122. Anonymous [AKA "teofila"] 说:

    You simply haven’t yet read enough on the subject which is why you cling to this ridiculous notion of “intelligent design” you might try “The God delusion” by Richard Dawkins for starters.The facts as they are beat any hokey religious twaddle any day. But if you want to play that game of – we don’t know yet so some unseen god must have done, it that’s your privelage – so long as you don’t still want to burn us at the stake as you used to

  123. Avalanche 说:
    @Rurik

    “渡渡鸟不复存在”灭绝=/=进化。

    如果进化有效(我还不相信它无效,但问题和欺诈行为日益增多!),那么另一个物种不应该进化到占据渡渡鸟的生态位——或者数以千计的灭绝但显然没有进化的物种中的任何一个?

    质疑新达文进化论 =/= 接受 智能设计。

    你让我想起那些拒绝接受政府在 9/11 前后撒谎的人,因为没有人能解释乘客最后去了哪里......“如果你不能说乘客发生了什么事,那么政府的整个理论一定是真的!” “解释”中已经存在的缺陷使其清楚那些“解释”是错误的/没有证据的。

    我只是在努力奋斗(反对我自己深厚的知识和对新达尔文进化论 (NDE) 的全心全意接受;这些书很好读,尽管对我“肯定”知道的东西构成了可怕的挑战!)通过“异端:一位科学家从达尔文到设计的旅程“ 然后 ”进化的象征:科学还是神话? 为什么我们教的关于进化的大部分内容是错误的”(以及开始他的第二个: “僵尸科学:进化的更多图标. 我的天啊。 天哪。 (哦,我不相信上帝!)这两本书都清楚地表明濒死体验是行不通的。

    (哦,你要大声哭出来——你有没有研究过分支学作为组织物种形成的“新”理论?他们实际上假设“飞行恐龙”(不记得是哪个)是始祖鸟的进化祖先,甚至虽然这个恐龙还活着 几百万年后 始祖鸟。 他们实际上是在建议这个!!)

    所以, 质疑进化是进化成为科学的必要条件。 任何声称自己使用科学的人都应该 100% 接受这句话。 (“相信科学”是一个令人担忧的措辞,不是吗?)就像濒死体验的“信徒”所做的那样,以“烧掉智慧……呃……不信的人……呃……伪科学家!”的恐怖尖叫和尖叫做出反应。 使他们成为非科学家!

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Rurik
  124. @Biff

    What is even more interesting is that Orangutans have less DNA in common with Humans, Chimps, and Gorillas than the latter three have with each other. Yet among the primates, Orangutans are considered to be 2nd in intelligence only to Humans.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  125. Anonymous [AKA "Xando"] 说:

    Darwin’s theory of natural selection has nothing whatsoever to say about DNA. The concept of DNA was entirely unknown to him.

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  126. Si1ver1ock 说:

    If humans were 创建, the question is from what?

    Is Fred suggesting that life was created (from nothing).

    还是 智能设计 imply genetic manipulation?

    Do you have to be God to do that?

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Colin Wright
  127. KenH 说:

    Oh, Freddy. It should be obvious that Fred believes that an omnipotent Gawd created the earth and the heavens, fauna and flora. And maybe he did, but there’s no evidence other than blind faith.

    No one said the theory of evolution is airtight. That’s why it’s a theory but IMO it’s the most plausible explanation for life and how it came to be. The prehistoric, historical and paleontological record is littered with peoples and specious that once thrived but who are now extinct for failing to adapt to changing environmental conditions or by being supplanted by fitter life forms.

    But if an omnipotent deity created us all then he clearly is no equalitarian and favors some and disfavors others. You must play by his rules which is survival at any cost. He only grants living things one chance to prove their worth and if they blow it then they end up in the dustbin of history.

    This deity did not put Fred’s beloved Mestizos or Mexico anywhere near the top of the human food chain.

  128. KenH 说:
    @Peter Frost

    Look at the last U.S. election. Most of them didn’t vote or they voted for Trump.

    I don’t have the exact figures handy, but nearly 70% voted for Hillary and they vote Democrat in approximately these percentages since the mid 80’s.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  129. @CanSpeccy

    Yes, as you are no doubt aware, Darwin was a great UFO-ologist and the founder of Scientology, to which church most British scientists belong — also Theresa May, and Tony Blair.

    Let’s not gloss-over such critical facts. Darwin was taken up in a giant UFO — beamed aboard from the HMS Beagle, in fact — and underwent a direct brain-implant of evolutionary theory as understood by the doglike beings from the fourth planet orbiting Sirius. That’s why it’s so wrong — it’s all about alien dogs.

    Upon his return, in addition to 物种起源, he penned the core religious documents of Scientology, buried them in the glacier next to the Iceman, to be found later by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard being a Scientologist, he took credit for everything Darwin wrote.

  130. @Macon Richardson

    Nossa Senhora! Karl Popper, you say? Bring on some Kant! Let’s hear Immanuel disrespect Darwin. Let’s have REAL expertise, by yiminy!

  131. @allis

    Three propositions:
    A people’s religion expresses the people’s culture.
    The ancient Greeks had an admirable culture.
    The religion of the ancient Greeks was primitive and foolish.

    All three premises are false.

    1. Social and group behavior expresses culture. Religion is not a behavior; religious expression is a behavior.
    2. Some people admire Greek culture. (Nuff said)
    3. The religion of the ancient Greeks, while primitive, was no more foolish than contemporary religions. Of contemporary religions, perhaps Taoism is the only one which is not foolish.

  132. @DH

    Sure. But evolutionism faces the same challenge. One thing is explaining why some people have red hair and others brown. A completely different issue is how oak trees, bacteria, whales and humans came to be. Evolutionism is not even close in explaining the latter.

    LOL. Thus spake Zarathrustramoron. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Certainly, in these environs, you are rewarded for claiming the most ridiculous bullshit imaginable. I’m sure that feels good, but it’s still bullshit.

  133. @AlreadyPublished

    In any case, evolution works not as a function of mere survival, but via differential reproductive success of organisms best fitted to their environments. In other words, organisms with even a slight reproductive advantage will in short course dominate the gene pool of their kind.

    No, they will not. Or, more correctly, they do not. Reproductive success is a cycle. Producing more offspring does not necessarily lead to more of those offspring surviving to themselves reproduce. There are other factors — predators, carnivores being prime examples.

    Think about what you say — think it 通过 — before you shoot off your mouth.

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  134. @Avalanche

    如果进化奏效,那么另一个物种不应该进化到渡渡鸟的生态位——或者数以千计已经灭绝但显然没有进化的物种中的任何一个?

    不,你这个白痴。 进化不是驱动力,不是主动力,不是 at all. Species adapt; evolution doesn’t 使 他们适应。

    • 回复: @Avalanche
  135. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:

    http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/

    Interesting page. Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of first life so this fits right in.

  136. @Hapalong Cassidy

    What is even more interesting is that Orangutans have less DNA in common with Humans, Chimps, and Gorillas than the latter three have with each other. Yet among the primates, Orangutans are considered to be 2nd in intelligence only to Humans.

    Some scientists are so heretical they believe Neandertals were more intelligent than 智人. Not as physically robust as the main line, they were absorbed into 智人.

  137. GW 说:
    @bossel

    Go away moron, the adults are speaking.

  138. @Si1ver1ock

    If humans were created, the question is from what?

    If a “creator” can create humans, do you have any difficulty recognizing that this “creator” would have no difficulty creating stuff to make humans with?

  139. @KenH

    I don’t have the exact figures handy, but nearly 70% voted for Hillary and they vote Democrat in approximately these percentages since the mid 80′s.

    马球。

    Trump votes = 62,984,828
    Hillary votes = 65,853,514 (3 million illegal California Mexicans voted)
    Trump Percentage= 46.1%
    Hillary Percentage = 48.2%

    Why would you invent such nonsense figures?

    • 回复: @KenH
  140. Nephre 说:
    @Rurik

    Funny – feel the hysteria? The author wrote of it brilliantly. The _hatred_ exhibited by those who can’t stand anyone criticizing _their_ religion of Darwin. I say this quite without prejudice. I don’t have a religion. I don’t want one. I do have spiritual beliefs, but those kept in a box just as they should be. After all, I don’t “believe” in gravity, but then again, there it is. I don’t have to believe in it. The author puts you to shame. You cannot respond except with the virulence of your emotions boiling over the top with an intellectual’s version of “rage.” It’s funny. :). Lol. Preposterous jerks.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
    , @Rurik
  141. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Anonymous

    Darwin’s theory of natural selection has nothing whatsoever to say about DNA. The concept of DNA was entirely unknown to him.

    Correct, but the discovery of DNA and the understanding of how it works is the proof of evolution. Evolution is not “Darwin’s theory”, but it arose from some of his works. 小猎犬号 and 上的“物种起源” are still highly regarded.

    The term “Darwinism” comes to us from Herbert Spencer, an older contemporary of Darwin. Spencer was not a scientist, but a philosopher who felt that survival of the fittest was the answer to everything. His books far outsold Darwin’s. In an effort to make money Darwin wrote a potboiler 人的后裔 which played to the prejudices of European readers.

    Spencer is nearly forgotten, but Darwin’s work bore fruit long after he died. To understand evolution well enough to comment intelligently takes an exposure to college-level biology, biochemistry, physiology, and microbiology. The general public and most psychologists do not have this background.

    • 回复: @Che Guava
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
  142. Che Guava 说:
    @BamBam Rubble

    I would withdraw my ‘agree’ if it were possible, you are clearly a very dull doctrinaire smart arse, without an inquisithve cluster in your jellyfish-like brain and personality .

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Mike Tre
  143. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Anonymous

    LOL

    使用17:24-25

    “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;”

    “Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;”

    Does that mean we are not supposed to go to church?

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Anonymous
  144. @Macon Richardson

    Of Darwinism, Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science has said

    I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life.

    Shows that Karl Popper was an pontificating idiot. Darwin, never claimed to explain the origin of life and, as the Darwin quotes I have given above indicate, Darwin thought it pointless, in the then state of knowledge, to even to attempt to explain the origin of life.

  145. Che Guava 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    Yes,i have read it (Darwin) before. Since I was making no such claim re. Darwin, your reply is totally irrelevant.

  146. @Nephre

    Funny – feel the hysteria?

    I think the hysteria you are feeling must be your own. Certainly nothing hysterical about Rurik’s comment to which you refer.

    • 回复: @Nephre
  147. Che Guava 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Well. I have three of four (admittedly non-human microbiology, not so much, only from having an intererest to read). So, even there, above 90th percentile in this thread.

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  148. @Che Guava

    I would withdraw my ‘agree’ if it were possible, you are clearly a very dull doctrinaire smart arse, without an inquisithve cluster in your jellyfish-like brain and personality .

    LOL. Love it. So disdainful, so haughty. Shit like that cracks me up. Like any of Unz’ denizens are highly-educated products of breeding and good taste.

    What? You want I should hurl insults? I should try to top “jellyfish-like”, even “inquisithve”? ROFLMAO.

    Don’t take yourself so seriously, d00d.

  149. @Hu Mi Yu

    Does that mean we are not supposed to go to church?

    Obviously, you are incapable of perceiving the philosophical and profoundly religious exhortation inherent in Paul’s worshipful scriptural rendition of “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”

    It’s like a metaphor, sorta. A metaphor on top of a simile, kinda. Had it a trifling bit of onomatopoeia, you’d be singing a different tune.

    Go to church, hands or no hands.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  150. Anonymous [AKA "whatwhatwhat"] 说:

    >Rurik says: But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

    Your argument that evolution has happened in the past and is happening all around us is that species have gone extinct and are going extinct? That’s it? Do you even know what evolution is?

  151. Agent76 说:
    @Simply Simon

    Thank you for your time viewing and commenting. I whole heartedly agree with you. The title of this should have been if I am not a baby what am I then?

  152. buckwheat 说:

    Damn I miss the old Fred. I fear he has become pussy whipped, and this Darwin nonsense confirms it.

  153. Nephre 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    Well, some of us are undiscerning. the fact that you can’t perceive the obvious doesn’t make the obvious go away. The malice is palpable. Maybe your own intellectual farts and psychiatric disorders smell the same as his. That wouldn’t surprise me.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  154. @Nephre

    The malice is palpable. Maybe your own intellectual farts and psychiatric disorders

    Yes, well we certainly feel your malice.

  155. I’m starting to suspect that many people’s faith in big-E Evolution begins to falter after exposure to just how aggressively obnoxious so many of its self-appointed defenders are.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  156. @Hu Mi Yu

    To understand evolution well enough to comment intelligently takes an exposure to college-level biology, biochemistry, physiology, and microbiology. The general public and most psychologists do not have this background.

    One should not underestimate the understanding of autodidacts, but certainly a college training in the life sciences equips one to more readily understand the mechanism of organic evolution.

    The machinery of inheritance is both incredibly complex and subject to all manner of errors. Thus it is not that the basic forms of life are subject to change that is surprising, but that reproduction without variation from the original pattern is achieved so often.

    And given the inevitability of genetic variation, evolution itself must be inevitable, since the accidental genetic variants that arise may differ from the original stock in reproductive success: better looks (or worse), for example, the better (or worse) to win the female heart, or grab the dominant male’s attention; faster legs to pursue the game on which survival depends, etc.

    That evolution has occurred is evident from the fossil record (unless we’re assuming that the Lord is joker who planted the fossil record to fool us).

    That evolution must occur is evident from what is now known about the delicacy, and hence imperfect fidelity, of the mechanism of inheritance, and the consequences of the resultant genetic variation for the reproductive success of the variants.

    • 回复: @Intelligent Dasein
  157. @BamBam Rubble

    I think what you are saying is that religion and science are composed of different stuff, and that if your religious texts seem to conflict with scientific knowledge, then it is time to update your scriptural exegesis.

    In fact, the need to revise religious doctrine in the light of advancing knowledge is inherent in the idea that Holy scripture represents the word of God. The word of God cannot be false. Therefore, where it clashes with our scientific understanding it must be our understanding of the word of God that needs revision, not God’s words.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  158. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Che Guava

    Well. I have three of four (admittedly non-human microbiology, not so much, only from having an intererest to read). So, even there, above 90th percentile in this thread

    Well then show us where evolution claims to explain the creation of the first cell, as Fred seems to think it does. The opening summary in a biology class I took recently was: All life evolved from earlier forms of life. The issue of creating that first life is deliberately excluded. There is room here (barely) for ID, but the term ID is usually interpreted to mean something more.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @j2
    , @Che Guava
  159. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “To understand evolution well enough to comment intelligently takes an exposure to college-level biology, biochemistry, physiology, and microbiology. The general public and most psychologists do not have this background.”

    Did you ever watch Jurassic Park? It was the mathematician who understood the fundamental problem. The fundamental problems, two of the three hard ones, in the evolution theory are mathematical in nature. Knowledge from the fields that you list gives the ability to see the similarity between lifeforms and the mechanisms of procreation and DNA, but nothing of that kind touches the probabilistic problems in creation of life from non-life (before anything existed in the scope of any of the fields you mention) and the creation of completely new species, or say, development through random mutations and selection of the phenotype of protein-coding DNA sections that differ by many mutations. The first fundamental problem is so hard that I even do not know how to attack it by anything but elementary probability theory (with the result that it is unbelievably improbable to put the first cell together), the second is a purely mathematical problem and can be addressed, but I get the result that evolution by the proposed mechanisms cannot work.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  160. @DH

    But evolutionism faces the same challenge. One thing is explaining why some people have red hair and others brown.

    Over 90% of humans have black hair, and there is good genetic evidence that black hair was the original hair color of humans. So Adam and Eve must have had black hair (as well as brown skin and brown eyes).

    Are you suggesting that Europeans are the product of a special act of creation? If that’s not your suggestion, what exactly are you suggesting?

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  161. @AlreadyPublished

    Who designed your hypothetical designer?”
    Doesn’t your question relate directly to the question scientists ask about the origin of the Big Bang? The singularity I believe they call it. Another one of the mysteries that may never be answered.

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  162. hrk 说:

    有趣的是,达尔文在谈到人类时被忽视了。 所以他们会整天推动它,但一旦你提出基于种族或性别的差异(在人类物种中),生物学、进化、达尔文等不再是一个话题,另一方立即进入二战模式. 哎呀……我想知道为什么? 🙂

  163. @j2

    Did you ever watch Jurassic Park? It was the mathematician who understood the fundamental problem.

    Well, I know that I, personally, base my understanding of evolution on what I learned watching Jurassic Park.

  164. @CanSpeccy

    I think what you are saying is that religion and science are composed of different stuff, and that if your religious texts seem to conflict with scientific knowledge, then it is time to update your scriptural exegesis.

    Not at all. I avoid exegeses like the plague. Religion is pure invention; science is a process that relies on observed, verifiable information.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  165. @Peter Frost

    Over 90% of humans have black hair, and there is good genetic evidence that black hair was the original hair color of humans. So Adam and Eve must have had black hair (as well as brown skin and brown eyes).

    Eve bit that apple, and ran off for two weeks in Hawaii with a red-headed Neandertal.

  166. @Hu Mi Yu

    The issue of creating that first life is deliberately excluded. There is room here (barely) for ID, but the term ID is usually interpreted to mean something more.

    Nah. Simon is correct — it all comes down to whether that singularity was created, or was the eternal infinitesimal mote that is the basis of all existence, sans creation, sans myth, sans mysticism.

  167. Mike Tre [又名“MikeatMikedotMike”] 说:
    @Che Guava

    Bam bam is the manochurch/Dillon Sweeney/ a-few-others troll who changes his name every couple days and spams all discussions related to evolution, mostly by using the airtight argument of “You’re stupid because I don’t agree with you”.

    Ignore him. At least EliteCommie and Corvinus use the same name so readers can ignore them on sight.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  168. peterAUS 说:
    @Buster Keaton’s Stunt Double

    I’m starting to suspect that many people’s faith in big-E Evolution begins to falter after exposure to just how aggressively obnoxious so many of its self-appointed defenders are.

    差不多了
    Although it goes above simply “aggressively obnoxious”. As making a person lose his/her job, career…ability to make a living.
    A next, 严重 level of dealing with “non-believers”.

  169. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Well then show us where evolution claims to explain the creation of the first cell, as Fred seems to think it does. The opening summary in a biology class I took recently was: All life evolved from earlier forms of life. The issue of creating that first life is deliberately excluded. There is room here (barely) for ID, but the term ID is usually interpreted to mean something more.”

    Darwin did suggest that life started in warm ponds. Life being born out of non-life is an essential part of darwinism, which is an ideology disguised as a scientific theory claiming that natural mechanisms have created the multitude of life around us. The idea that all life is created from earlier life is actually an antithesis to darwinism. The idea that life can only be born out of life was something else, like that flies are born of maggots, not from rotting meat. Darwinism certainly allows life to be born out of non-life and one argument of the critics is that it cannot happen in reality.

    To say that life has evolved from previous life is not yet evolution theory. The evolution theory says more, it says that life has evolved from previous life through the mechanisms of the evolution theory, a small set of natural mechanisms like natural selection and mutations, not for instance by inheriting acquired properties. Creationism indeed does oppose the idea that life evolved from earlier forms of life, but most critics of the evolution theory accept this idea, but question the mechanisms.

    Darwin claimed, as the title of his book shows, that all species have developed through the mechanism of selection, natural or sexual or even human selection as he thought a dog was bred from many ancestral species by humans. Later mutations and some other mechanisms have been added and the result is neo-darwinism. But all these mechanisms are still a very small set. Most critics against darwinism say that the proposed mechanisms of evolution are not sufficient to explain the origin of species. That means, to explain it sufficiently well.

    With the exception of some creationists everybody agrees that the proposed mechanisms do change existing species and can create small changes. That was known long before Darwin, as it had been used in breeding for some thousands of years.

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  170. @CanSpeccy

    That evolution has occurred is evident from the fossil record (unless we’re assuming that the Lord is joker who planted the fossil record to fool us).

    That is ridiculous. There is no better refutation of the theory of evolution than the fossil record which, rather than displaying a haphazard chaos of forms supposedly left over from the struggle for existence, instead reveals that the basic taxa appear suddenly and endure unaltered throughout long ages. The persistence of forms has necessitated “punctuated equilibrium” and other such 特设 hypotheses that attempt to square evolution with the contradictory evidence deriving from the fossil record. All this really means is that the theory is in disarray and increasingly desperate attempts must be made to salvage it.

    That evolution must occur is evident from what is now known about the delicacy, and hence imperfect fidelity, of the mechanism of inheritance, and the consequences of the resultant genetic variation for the reproductive success of the variants.

    This is the tautological approach once again. Evolution 必须 occur because some individuals 必须 be better at reproducing than others, etc.

    What evolutionists do not seem to acknowledge is that, supposing that such selective pressures do in fact exist, they would be operating in every direction, in every degree, at every level, in every manner, and at all times. This would result only in a Brownian motion of selective pressures that would produce no net direction and no additive change whatsoever. If anything, they would serve to compress the species into its established mold and to round off any exaggerations and eccentricities that might perchance appear. Logic dictates that to the extent natural selection operates, it must be a 保守的 力。

    At the individual level, the survival or lack thereof of any creature is dependent on a never-ending train of random incidents that have nothing to do with its reproductive fitness. Every night my porch light draws hundreds of midges. Some of them invariably end up caught in the spider webs that keep reappearing there no matter how often I wipe them off. Others crawl into the glass bulb and perish of dehydration and exhaustion. Dozens more fall to the ground dead of no apparent reason. Did any of these have any inheritable genetic variation that made them more death-prone than their cousins who survived the night? No, they are all very much the same. And neither has evolution operated on them, for the same midges keep recurring each year, each decade, each century, each millennium. There is no Darwinian “signal” in the “noise” of constant death to which all creatures are exposed. All we see is the same actualization in the same forms, again and again. Thus does the will to live manifest itself, and no other evidence do we have.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  171. Rurik 说:
    @Avalanche

    质疑新达文进化论 =/= 接受智能设计。

    告诉弗雷德

    I already pointed out that there’s no evidence of “Intelligent design’.

    the rest of your post reeks of ‘the lady doth protest too much – histrionics

  172. Rurik 说:
    @Nephre

    Funny – feel the hysteria? … … The _hatred_ exhibited by those who can’t stand ….. … puts you to shame. … … the virulence of your emotions boiling over the top with an intellectual’s version of “rage.” It’s funny. :). Lol. Preposterous jerks.

    another lady doth protest too much, methinks..

    嗯..

  173. SamAdams 说:
    @advancedatheist

    The materialists never ask the ultimate questions, so have no real answers. The emotional charge in their reactions is obvious. Some time in their lives they recoiled at formal religion. Instead of believing in ‘God’, they chose to believe in the god of human science. They are unthinking in their faith, yet they scorn others for believing in an ultimate Creator.

    If Humanity and all life came about from a primordial soup, where did that soup come from ? If we are nothing but the chance interaction of matter and energy, – where did matter and energy originate from ? We cannot even describe what, exactly, an ‘electron’, ‘proton’, and ‘neutron’ IS. All we do is discover ‘sub-atomic particles’ that we name & do not understand – – Human beings can be so arrogant. They invent a name for something they have observed and think they’ve explained it.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
    , @Anonymous
    , @CanSpeccy
  174. utu 说:
    @BamBam Rubble

    The TofE is the best explanation

    Are the two explanations within the framework of ToE correct? And how would you go about proving or disproving them?

    ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’

    ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’

  175. @Intelligent Dasein

    Mother of God, but you are one major fucking nutjob.

  176. @Mike Tre

    Aw, Mikey, you are so pathetic, so whiny. Aren’t you embarrassed? If you can’t take it, stop picking at your face and giving yourself primrose tea enemas. Try learning how to write sensible, direct, well-structured English composition.

    I knew a Navy senior chief like you. Showed up on the bridge every freaking morning, and started a litany of complaint. The NCO chow was no good; his bunk was lumpy; the seaman-deuce in charge of coffee didn’t make it right; his wife was probably fucking the next-door neighbor while he was at sea. Same shit, different day, every day. Snipe chief, of course.

    • 回复: @Mike Tre
  177. I don’t have a dog in this food fight. Though I do note that Fred likes to post a lot of controversial topics and therefore ensures a lot of comments and attention. Who knows what Fred really believes.
    But one thing’s for sure, and that is that the origins of life won’t be settled here. I think Fred just likes to stir the pot and then sits back and laughs. However this is just a supposition, and not a theory.

  178. peterAUS 说:
    @SamAdams

    The materialists never ask the ultimate questions, so have no real answers. The emotional charge in their reactions is obvious. Some time in their lives they recoiled at formal religion.

    对。

    Instead of believing in ‘God’, they chose to believe in the god of human science.

    I feel it’s more as “I can be God” and even “I am equal to God”.
    Funny word that “equal”. Close to “inequality” from which it easily goes into “privilege”, “oppression” and the rest.
    Makes you think……..or not.

    Human beings can be so arrogant.

    不要说

  179. Mike Tre [又名“MikeatMikedotMike”] 说:
    @BamBam Rubble

    ” Try learning how to write sensible, direct, well-structured English composition.”

    I suppose the irony is lost on you that you would immediately follow up that critique with this whopper:

    “The NCO chow was no good; his bunk was lumpy; the seaman-deuce in charge of coffee didn’t make it right; his wife was probably fucking the next-door neighbor while he was at sea. Same shit, different day, every day. Snipe chief, of course.”

    LOL – But why don’t you use the same handle, fool? You’re mostly a coward, I’d expect. But perhaps you realize you’ve made quite a few ignore lists, and this is how you attempt to stay relevant. Any attention is good attention, I suppose. I suggest you look to your savior, L Ron Hubbard, to guide you.

    Go ahead, give me another weak insult run through the Hindu translator. I have except large brain is very more, yes?

  180. “I will win three Irish Sweepstakes in a row. These odds are infinitely better than the odds of Darwin being correct.
    I find it odd that historians, especially those who question the holocaust narrative, are also treated with the same enthusiastic disdain by the powers that be. Sometime ago I pondered over why it is off limits to question Darwinism? Why is it so protected? I came to a simple conclusion. Darwinism is just 1 part of an overall scheme to deny the existence of God for the purpose of weakening society by abridging, or stunting human thought. Darwinism is a misdirection that fits all too well, and it parallels nicely with Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and the study of electricity, a field of science, that has not been allowed to advance past where it was in the 1920’s. Now you can say my idea requires a conspiracy on a scale so grand that it is incomprehensible, thus impossible. But, so are the Big Bang and Darwin’s theory.

  181. Anonymous[208]• 免责声明 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Two different opinions in the Bible from two different authors. Your favored passage doesn’t automatically override the one you don’t like. Note that Jesus condemned the author of Ecclesiastes, more than once.

    传道书的伊壁鸠鲁 Cetemum censo 除了吃、喝和享乐(8, 15; 2, 24; 5, 18; cf. 3, 12)之外,没有什么对人有益 被耶稣定罪 (Luke 12, 20) in a section which contains several allusions to the Book of Ecclesiastes {cf. Luke 12, 18 and Eccl. 2, 4; Luke 12, 20 and Eccl. 2, i8b, and above all, Luke 12, 27 = Matt. 6, 29 (Solomon in all his glory).

    The Book of Ecclesiastes: a new metrical translation with an introduction and explanatory notes (John Hopkins Press, 1905, p.6)
    http://www.archive.org/stream/bookofecclesiast00balt

  182. Anonymous[208]• 免责声明 说:
    @SamAdams

    Human beings can be so arrogant. They invent a name for something they have observed and think they’ve explained it: 神。

    Thanks for explaining your arrogance to us.

  183. Allan 说:

    The objection from the flagella is an oldie and a goodie of antidarwinism. We ought to thank cranky Fred for bringing it to our attention again.

    Just last week I picked up my copy of Atheism Explained by David Steele and, while skimming the chapter about objections to Darwinism, was reminded on p.49 about a shortcoming of the irreducible complexity objection:

    Some kinds of bacteria have tails with which they can swim. These tails or ‘flagella’ have quite a complex structure. When ID began, this was Exhibit A in the case against Darwinism. Thirty proteins are involved in the creation of the flagellum and, the ID people argued, all thirty had to be in place before the flagellum could work.

    No sooner was this claim made than it was refuted. It was discovered that ten of these thirty proteins were responsible for forming the secretory organ of some bacteria.

    On pp. 46 you’ll find a related discussion about the notion of scaffolding. All of this is in a chapter about one of eight popular objections to evolution, i.e. descent with modification. Objection #1 is the complaint that there hasn’t been enough time for evolution. Obj #2 is that we don’t see evolution happening today. Steele deals with sophomoric complaints that we don’t encounter half-evolved structures, that apes are still here, and so on. He carefully distinguishes the IC objection from Paley’s argument that chance could not produce great complexity.

    The book is well worth every penny of the few bucks needed to acquire a copy and is a great introduction to theology in a semirigorous format. Be forewarned that it compensates for its lack of theocratic sanctimony and creationist rage with levity.

    http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/atheism_explained.htm

  184. KenH 说:
    @BamBam Rubble

    马球。

    Whoa, you’re really bringing the heat.

    Your post doesn’t say anything about the percentage of Latinos who voted for Hillary that would make my claim “horse puckey”, so here’s a link that should set you straight:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/37424551/

    65% of Latinos voted for Hildabeast while only 29% voted for Trump. So much for not voting as a racial bloc.

  185. @Colin Wright

    My bad. I can’t type and do math at the same time.

  186. @BamBam Rubble

    不尽然。

    Oh. alright, then. I tried. But what you said thus remains a complete mystery, to me.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  187. @SamAdams

    如果人类和所有生命来自原始汤,那汤是从哪里来的? 如果我们只是物质和能量的偶然相互作用,——物质和能量从何而来?

    好问题。 但与达尔文进化论无关。 达尔文非常坚定地指出,推测生命是如何产生的完全是在浪费时间。 他只关心生命形式如何随着地质时间的变化而变化,正如在地质地层中发现的化石的变化所证明的那样。 如果反达尔文主义者花几分钟思考一下,他们对达尔文和进化论的大部分仇恨可能会消失。 但不知何故,他们似乎无法面对两个简单的事实:(1)达尔文进化论与生命起源无关; (2) 化石记录表明生命形式随着时间的推移而发生了变化。

    确实,在没有发生进化的情况下,生命形式可能已经发生了变化。 也许主一次又一次地回来,是为了特殊的创造。 但正如我们所知,由于不同形式的不同繁殖率,生命形式确实会发生变化,因此假设达尔文过程完成了整个工作,而没有上帝的干预,这似乎是最合理的。

    • 回复: @MacNucc11
  188. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    Did you ever watch Jurassic Park?

    Yes, I took a child to see it. The science in Hollywood movies is always defective.

  189. @Si1ver1ock

    ‘If humans were created, the question is from what?

    Is Fred suggesting that life was created ex nihilo (from nothing).

    Or does intelligent design imply genetic manipulation?

    Do you have to be God to do that?’

    If you’re God, why bother? Just make whatever you want.

    Of course, to me, this merely suggests that even if there is some supernatural being, our conception of Him could be fantastically askew. Who knows what external parameters he has to adhere to? He might just be some sort of cosmic observer. He could be a moron, randomly rearranging blocks and giggling to himself.

    Consider the ants in the foundation of my house. They might well suspect I exist. How accurate their conception of me is would be another matter. For all I know, they might think the neighbor’s cat is actually the Supreme Being. They might even be assuming that I care in the least about the moral quality of the lives they lead.

  190. @CanSpeccy

    I think what you are saying is that religion and science are composed of different stuff, and that if your religious texts seem to conflict with scientific knowledge, then it is time to update your scriptural exegesis.

    Now you made me feel bad. Allow me to specify.

    Theology is bunk. Pure nonsense. Every declaration within any given theological presentation is invention.

    Religion is a cultural/social behavior based on theology, superstition, tradition and old wives’ tales.

    Science is a system for observation of phenomena, investigation of physical relationships, interpretation of data, and prediction of future inputs and outputs.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  191. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    Darwin did suggest that life started in warm ponds. Life being born out of non-life is an essential part of darwinism, which is an ideology disguised as a scientific theory claiming that natural mechanisms have created the multitude of life around us. The idea that all life is created from earlier life is actually an antithesis to darwinism.

    Evolution is not Darwinism. It was not invented or discovered by Charles Darwin. The idea that all cells evolved from earlier cells is the essence of evolution as currently taught. Speculation on how the first cell came into being is interesting, and it gets a disproportionate amount of attention. But it is still speculation, and how that happened does not affect the theory of evolution at all.

  192. Entirely out of my league here. But allow me to jump right in face first to make a fool of myself anyway.

    My understanding is that, when it comes to evolution there is refinement of the species within it’s existing general shape/form, like neanderthals into modern humans (micro) and there is the transformation from one species to another, like reptiles into birds (macro).

    What evidence is there really of the latter? The former seems straight forward enough. Slowly over time, posture, and existing features like the curve of a beak change by way of selective breeding for what is perceived to be desirable characteristics due to their superior performance within a particular environment creating more breeding opportunities for them.

    But if evolution supposedly starts at a fixed point, the soup, then should there not be an excess of fossil records documenting the slow, millions upon however many millions of years of transformation from something with fins to feet or feet to wings etc. We’re always told it didn’t happen quickly, which to me suggests that it should be no more difficult to find fossils that show things with feet but are still in some stage of losing a tail or gaining wings. Yet, there is no such evidence?

    How can that be? Should there not be just as much, if not more evidence of the macro side of evolution as there is micro?

    Is it not possible that life had a multitude of beginnings? That things with wings always had wings and they just changed and improved according to environment over time?

    Is it not possible that life didn’t come from primordial soup at all? But was rather seeded from an outside force, be that a meteor or aliens or whatever God means to you?

    I mean, I know it’s a big ‘what if’ and that anything without an answer that people can wrap their heads around tends to be lashed out at, but is there any concrete evidence of evolution bringing us from ape to early man? Could it be that something came along and found apes, then mixed it with some other DNA and in doing so created (perhaps more than one type of) early man and then left natural selection to handle the refinement afterwards?

    Parts of the official narrative surrounding evolution, much like the big bang, seem to be carried as much by faith/beleif as the religious viewpoints that both seem to take pleasure in consistently bashing.

  193. Biff 说:
    @Johnnie Walker Read

    Lloyd stepped in a crap Pye. That video was almost funny.

  194. Anonymous[286]• 免责声明 说:
    @DanFromCT

    You’re not real smart thinking everybody who isn’t part of your perverted Jewish cult is an atheist. St. Paul was right about Christians being mostly ignoble and stupid creatures.

    Speaking of unmanly, socio-sexually dysfunctional losers, Jewsus requested you cut off your balls. And he was a flaming faggot with a boy snuggled in his “bosom,” as the Jew Testament puts it. And he promised heaven means no straight sex forever. Puts that “Bride of Christ” tripe in perspective.

    • 回复: @Charlie Baud
  195. davecydell 说:

    Fred, [love ya, baby]

    Darwinism fails vs. Intelligent Design.

    But the huge issue is: Intelligent Design is a God created world. However, the extremely intelligent among us cannot accept a God because…………………….

    ………………….with a God comes sin and without a God, no sin.

    Hence, where and why you position yourself, as do many others.

  196. @Simply Simon

    Doesn’t your question [who designed the designer] relate directly to the question scientists ask about the origin of the Big Bang? The singularity I believe they call it. Another one of the mysteries that may never be answered.

    I already explained that the further we dial back the clock of history, the less certainty we can have about our theories and hypotheses, reducing us to speculating about plausible scenarios, and that we have no choice but to accept the constraints imposed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    In our present universe, virtual particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously appear from nothing, then annihilate each other. If such a property was present at the beginning, 然后 it is not hard to imagine the entire universe springing into existence from nothing. After all, the sum total of the universe appears to be….nothing.

    “The matter of the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close together have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by matter.
    So the total energy of the universe is zero设立的区域办事处外,我们在美国也开设了办事处,以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“
    – Stephen W. Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 136.

  197. @BamBam Rubble

    Thanks for your uneducated and unpleasant response to my point. Perhaps you could try doing some basic 研究 before you “shoot off your mouth” next time:

    期限 差异繁殖成功 refers to a statistical analysis comparing successful reproduction rates between groups in a given generation of a species—in other words, how many offspring each group of individuals is able to leave behind. The analysis is used to compare two groups holding different variations of the same trait, and it provides evidence of which group is “the fittest.”

    If individuals exhibiting variation A of a trait are demonstrated to reach reproductive age more often and produce more offspring than individuals with variation B of the same trait, the differential reproductive success rate allows you to infer that natural selection is at work and that variation A is advantageous—at least for conditions at the time. Those individuals with variation A will deliver more genetic material for that trait to the next generation, making it more likely to persist and carry on to future generations. Variation B, meanwhile, is likely to gradually vanish。 (文献)

    Your ipse-dixit faith-based assertions don’t really cut it for me.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  198. Dumbo 说:

    1. We have not observed or have evidence of the creation of any new species. We have observed only changes in existing species. (i.e. dog breeding, variations of types of flies or bacteria that start reproducing only with the new group, etc.)
    2. It is unlikely that random genetic mutations + “survival of the fittest” explain the changes required to create ever more complex organs and organisms, especially considered that random beneficial mutations are very rare. Another explanation is needed, either the mutations are not random, or something else is involved.
    3. By the way, as it has been observed, “survival of the fittest” doesn’t really mean anything, it’s circular reasoning. Also, species seem to adapt to changes in environment much faster than Darwinian theory implies (epigenetics?).
    4. Most changes in species are conservative, i.e. removing the defective or different and keeping the “normal” or average.
    5. Species seem to appear and disappear suddenly and not gradually (i.e. extinction of dinosaurs, fossil record).
    6. We have zero evidence of existence of life anywhere else on the whole Universe besides Earth and increasing evidence seems to show that we are alone and that life therefore is something much more complicated and unique than we think.
    7. This is not evidence of Intelligent Design, but that the Darwinian theory of the “origin of the species” and succeeding theories is flawed.

    Fred is right. You are all a bunch of unbelievers who will be dragged to Hell to suffer everlasting torment. Lulz.

  199. @Anonymous

    So I take it you’re one of those fedora-tipping deist faggots who think that masonic, judaized 19th-centruy is somehow the one true philosophy? Or maybe your some kind of LARPing neopagan?

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  200. @AlreadyPublished

    Your ipse-dixit faith-based assertions don’t really cut it for me.

    Your absurdly comical misunderstanding of evolutionary processes is nothing but bullshit. You, and the rest of the Creationist shit-bags, are nuts. Rage and denial-filled, shrieking priests of a long-ago Baal, converted to a false Christianity.

    You guys never change, and you never fool anybody.

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  201. @Dumbo

    Laddie, all seven of your “points” are ridiculous, god-fearing nonsense.

  202. Che Guava 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Really, I think the question of origin is basic. Do you read the posts of others before flying off the handle?

    I was saying that there are many demonstrable instances of evolution, OTOH, very many transitions of organs and development of new ones that are clearly outside the scope of Darwinian, and for that matter, Dawkinsian evolution.

    Sure. I would allow that some may have been mutations. The pink grapefruit was produced from atomic bombardment.

    Perhaps that programme was producing many other new sub-species of fruit and vegetables, but that is the only success story I have heard of.

    How do you get from a shrew-like creature to the many varieties of bat? The intermediate varieties would have restricted use of forelimbs, while not yet being able to use them for flight. Thus, easy pickings for carnivores of the time.

    Perhaps bats arose immediately after the last mass-extinction (prior to the one now), and there were not enough predators to prevent their further development, but there are many other examples of transformations that have similar implausibility re. the intermediate stages.

    I am not against Darwinian evolution, at all, although it is too clearly close to his own observation of the selective breeding of domestic animals by people.

    My example of the bats above, is just one of very many where it is difficult to imagine a viable intermediate species. In most such cases, there is no fossil record (origin of bats and cetaceans, as examples, there should be intermediate examples of both, but there are not).

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  203. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Dumbo

    1. We have not observed or have evidence of the creation of any new species. We have observed only changes in existing species. (i.e. dog breeding, variations of types of flies or bacteria that start reproducing only with the new group, etc.)

    Wrong. Doctors have identified a Chinese man who has only 44 chromosomes compared to the 46 most of us have. He is a new species, because if he mates with a normal woman most of the pregnancies will miscarry. A similar thing happened 5-7 million years ago when two ape chromosomes merged and separated the 46-chromosome line that led to humans from the 48-chromosome line that led to chimpanzees.
    https://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news1242.

    It is unlikely that random genetic mutations + “survival of the fittest” explain the changes required to create ever more complex organs and organisms, especially considered that random beneficial mutations are very rare. Another explanation is needed, either the mutations are not random, or something else is involved.

    Yes, there is another mechanism involved. During the special kind of cell division called meosis that produces egg and sperm cells, the two copies of the genes that we carry in each chromosome pair are switched around. The result is not random but more like a kaleidoscope where the same patterns repeat over and over again down through succeeding generations.

    3. By the way, as it has been observed, “survival of the fittest” doesn’t really mean anything, it’s circular reasoning. Also, species seem to adapt to changes in environment much faster than Darwinian theory implies (epigenetics?).

    If you listen carefully to the sound of a flute you will hear noise. The pure note of the flute is the sound of the random white noise produced by blowing filtered through the closed environment of the flute. So it is with evolution. Randomness is filtered into something elegant.

    Epigenetics doesn’t mean what you think it does. The rapid adaptations are achieved because of the gene crossovers during meisis mentioned above.

    4. Most changes in species are conservative, i.e. removing the defective or different and keeping the “normal” or average.

    And this disproves evolution…how?

    5. Species seem to appear and disappear suddenly and not gradually (i.e. extinction of dinosaurs, fossil record).

    Dinosaurs are not extinct. The larger species died, but we still have birds, crocodiles, and a few dragons.

    The “fossil record” is really God’s trash heap. Most living things die without a trace. Only under rare circumstances is the evidence preserved. So of course there are gaps.

    6. We have zero evidence of existence of life anywhere else on the whole Universe besides Earth and increasing evidence seems to show that we are alone and that life therefore is something much more complicated and unique than we think.

    We are beginning to see evidence for life on mars, and increasingly find organic molecules on asteroids and distant planets. We are almost certainly not alone.

    7. This is not evidence of Intelligent Design, but that the Darwinian theory of the “origin of the species” and succeeding theories is flawed.

    I don’t know what you are writing about here, and I don’t think you do either.

    Fred is right. You are all a bunch of unbelievers who will be dragged to Hell to suffer everlasting torment. Lulz.

    The study of evolution is the study of God’s handiwork. Turn away from it, and you are the one in trouble.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
    , @j2
  204. @Hu Mi Yu

    Cheese Louise, HuMi. You’re a regular Dr. Schweitzer, medicating the dumbos and all. 😉

  205. Rurik 说:
    @Biff

    谢谢你的视频

    Also, chimps are known to be very territorial and violent

    Yes, but certainly less so with the Bonobo

    The bonobo, also called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee,[3] is an endangered great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan;

    Primatologist Frans de Waal states bonobos are capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity,[3] and described “bonobo society” as a “gynecocracy”.[34][a] Primatologists

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

    the Bonobo, along with the other great apes, will no doubt go extinct in this century, due to the mindless ravages of the planet by ‘God’s special little creature’.

    someone posted a picture of a child suffering from round worms, and proof that no Intelligent Design would ever create such a thing.

    Watching (with horror) as God’s special little creature, sets about wiping out every last natural wonder (that once inspired man to believe in God in the first place), out of insatiable, blind greed- leaves me thinking the round worm is a species of exquisite elegance by comparison to the mindless, consuming, torturing, droning war-ape.

    But that’s just me 😉

  206. j2 说:
    @Che Guava

    “How do you get from a shrew-like creature to the many varieties of bat? The intermediate varieties would have restricted use of forelimbs, while not yet being able to use them for flight. Thus, easy pickings for carnivores of the time.

    Perhaps bats arose immediately after the last mass-extinction (prior to the one now), and there were not enough predators to prevent their further development, but there are many other examples of transformations that have similar implausibility re. the intermediate stages.”

    Even in absence of carnivores, how could these miserable intermediate forms compete for sexual partners? No, it is clear that neo-darwinism has not answered the question that Darwin claimed to have answered: the origin of species. Especially as new genuses arose so fast after a mass extinction event, like just before the Cenozoic era.

    I have been thinking of microbes transmitting genes from other species: getting a piece of DNA to their genome from some species and inserting this DNA to the genome of another species. Microbes may also be the place where new gene segments could have developed by mutations: they are old enough and there are many of them. Humans turn out to have shared genes with cats, cows and mice. “Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.” Cats should be closer to dogs than to humans and about as far from humans and chimps, but it is not so. It is like cats have got human genes and the only way would be by microbes moving them between species. So, humans who had cows got cow genes and were thereafter called cattle, goyim, while humans, who had sheep got sheep genes and got thick curly hair and heavy beards and they believed sheepishly all what their priests told them. Hunter gatherers knew that characteristics can move from a species to another. They tried to get genes from their totem animal: bears and jaguars, by keeping the skins and heads of these animals, or keeping the animals in cages. They wanted the hunting instincts of a large carnivore.

    I think this theory has as much potential as darwinism. Not worse anyway. Darwinism is a fable.

    • 回复: @Che Guava
  207. Che Guava 说:

    I stop at your casual use of ‘goyim’, and stupid one-off username.

  208. Che Guava 说:
    @j2

    You are making a very valid point, but AFAiK, that kind of gene-sharing only exissts among bacteria.

    • 回复: @j2
  209. anonymous[312]• 免责声明 说:
    @Dumbo

    We have zero evidence of existence of life anywhere else on the whole Universe besides Earth and increasing evidence seems to show that we are alone

    While the first part is technically correct, I am getting the feeling that you do not quite understand just how massive the universe is..

  210. j2 说:
    @Che Guava

    “but AFAiK, that kind of gene-sharing only exissts among bacteria.”

    Not quite so, and it mostly happens with viruses. About 8% of human genome is DNA humans got from viruses. There happens all kind of copying errors with DNA. It is not at all impossible that viruses may get DNA segments from the host. (I would say it is certain that they can get DNA from the host if they can pass DNA to the host, it is the same mechanism.) In this way viruses may transport genes from another species. Interspecies sex is not the only way.

    This is one way to get a gene for a wing of a bat. No gradual evolution. Take a ready one.

  211. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Che Guava

    How do you get from a shrew-like creature to the many varieties of bat? The intermediate varieties would have restricted use of forelimbs, while not yet being able to use them for flight. Thus, easy pickings for carnivores of the time.

    They might not have been able to fly, but even a little webbing would make them effective swimmers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrew

    In general, shrews are terrestrial creatures that forage for seeds, insects, nuts, worms, and a variety of other foods in leaf litter and dense vegetation, but some specialise in climbing trees, living underground, living under snow, or even hunting in water.

    • 回复: @Che Guava
  212. @BamBam Rubble

    Theology is bunk. Pure nonsense. Every declaration within any given theological presentation is invention.

    Religion is a cultural/social behavior based on theology, superstition, tradition and old wives’ tales.

    Science is a system for observation of phenomena, investigation of physical relationships, interpretation of data, and prediction of future inputs and outputs.

    So you confirm my statement that science and religion are of different stuff.

    But because religion is not fact based does not mean it is worthless. Fairy tales and nursery rhymes are not true but they have a function, as does the Iliad or the Odyssey. A religious account of the history of the world and the nature of God or the Gods is a narrative to live by. A good religion has a valid social function. It is a vital social institution. It is a factor determining group survival and competitive success. Likewise, the readiness of people to accept a religious belief, or at least to accept a religious narrative as a guide to life.

    Readiness, in a scientific and materialistic age, to accept the validity of religion was nicely expressed by that atheist Winston Churchill who said, “In times of fear or perplexity, I pray to God, and it helps. It helps a lot.”

    I suspect that there is a genetic component to that susceptibility to the power of pray and the readiness to accept the existence of a benign, or at least somewhat benign, god if not a pantheon of gods.

    Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins who reject religion as a harmful load of rubbish are, in my view sadly, indeed catastrophically, mistaken. Indeed it is hard to understand how Dawkins can be so obtuse as to fail to understand the biological function of religion.

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  213. @CanSpeccy

    我们不同意。

    I’m sure we both will survive.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  214. Che Guava 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    感谢。

    I did not know of the variety of shrews before, only having seen the basic ground-dwelling SE Asian variety, and read of Shakespeare’s use of the word for a certain type of womam.

    但是,我认为从 WP 中提取事实在大多数情况下几乎没有价值,并且不能解释从那里到蝙蝠的原因。

    Actually, I am pretty sure that genetic evidence places bats quite distant from shrews. Even the metabolism. Shrews are like certain birds and insects, in that they can never rest. Most bats can.

    Although we must be aware that the grand-ancestor of placental mammals likely was a shrew, or shrew-like.

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  215. @BamBam Rubble

    Thanks for the unjustified torrent of abuse, Mr fictional stoneage cartoon baby.
    Every one of my posts was anti-creationist, pro-evolutionary, pro-science, pro-detective, anti-mystic, contrary to your latest round of schizophrenic false charges.

    Here’s that link that you ignored, like a fanatical creationist:
    https://www.google.com/search?&q=differential+reproductive+success

    I’ll put you on my ignore list.

  216. @BamBam Rubble

    我们不同意。

    I contend that religions are systems of belief that shape morality, and that group morality determines the survival of tribes, races, nations and civilizations.

    Among religions I would include all systems of belief for the shaping of public morality, including not only Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also Confucianism, Communism and, in the West today, the government-promoted and bureaucratically- and judicially-imposed system of belief known as political correctness.

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    On that, are we in disagreement?

    • 回复: @BamBam Rubble
  217. Avalanche 说:
    @BamBam Rubble

    “不,你这个白痴。 进化不是驱动力,不是主动力,根本不是力。 物种适应; 进化并没有让它们适应。”

    所以,你是在暗示某种适应“刚刚发生”,这使得任何物种进化成其他物种?!

    进化是如何停止发生的——是否有任何新物种通过适应(或任何其他方法)出现? 不是一个物种内部已经可能发生的轻微改变,而是一个从未存在过的全新物种? 看看写了“异端”一书的芬兰酶微生物学家——他和他的研究生无法“进化”酶——即使“聪明的设计师的定向进化”超出了某些限制? (而不是接近新物种的任何东西!)为什么“聪明的设计师”狗饲养者不能从“狗的部分”中创造出一个新物种:不是狗的亚种/种族; 但是一个具有不同基因的全新物种? 变异做不到!

    如果进化是适应的结果(因为进化不强迫任何事情......)——为什么在人类记录的所有历史中都没有“适应”成一种新动物? 为什么进化不仅仅是一个“一般般”的故事,试图解释我们还无法弄清楚的事情?

  218. @CanSpeccy

    I contend that religions are systems of belief that shape morality, and that group morality determines the survival of tribes, races, nations and civilizations.

    Good lord, Speccy. You’re looking for a carefully-considered discussion, old-school style? I don’t know if I can meet the challenge, soured as I am by years of exposure to Mensa members. (That’s a wee joke. I went to a Mensa meeting once.)

    Not to be too picky with language, but religions 五月 be belief systems. They may be social systems that are prescriptive of behavior. They may be systems that include prescriptive morality. They may be fideist systems where “morality” is defined only in terms of a variation on the age-old principle of reciprocity.

    I say all that because religion is not necessarily prescriptive of ethical values, and I am one to differentiate morality and ethical values.

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    I really see no definitive evidence of that. You may provide examples, if you wish.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  219. Anonymous[144]• 免责声明 说:

    Well, we finally got that settled.

  220. j2 说:

    The dichtomy with evolution and creation is wrong. If nothing had evolved, there would not be anything created, so lack of evolution is a proof of lack of creation.

    It is also true to the other direction: Evolution is a proof of creation. Think about anything you have created: a book, a painting, a melody, a program, an article, a piece of furniture, a prosperous firm. It always took time and the idea evolved during this time. It was never that you said, let it be and it was. Indeed, if somebody claims to have created a piece of anything and there are no signs that the idea was evolving for some time, he most probably stole the result form someone else.

    What shows in evolution that it is creation is that it evolves towards better rather than degrades. And evolution as a term means that it is getting higher, better. Naturally everything finally breaks down, gets worse, ages, rots. So if something gets better it must be creation of some kind. It must use intelligence of some kind, even if this intelligence is given by some simple rules like natural selection.

    But as it turns out, natural selection, like all selection processes, only reduces choices. It reduces complexity and is basically a destructive force, not a creative one. A creative force in darwinism is random mutations, selection is a destructive force reducing alternatives. I have tried to compose music by writing a program that goes through different variations of a riff. There are quite many and one can take a sample and listen. Practically no variation is good. It is almost impossible to find a single good riff in this way. Why? Because taking a random sample is like random mutations, they just do not find the very few good combinations that there are somewhere. But finding a reasonable new riff with a guitar is not so difficult and does not take so long. That is an intelligent choice.

  221. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “He is a new species, because if he mates with a normal woman most of the pregnancies will miscarry.”

    He is a new species only if he finds a woman and makes fertile children. The problem with mutations is that it is difficult to make two mutated individuals so that they start a new species.

    “During the special kind of cell division called meosis that produces egg and sperm cells,”

    We all know meosis. It cannot create totally new genes. Find a way that can explain how an intron can get 10 or so mutations so that it codes a really different protein and the gene variant is not only an allele of an existing one.

    “Dinosaurs are not extinct. The larger species died, but we still have birds, crocodiles, and a few dragons.”

    Crocodiles and Komodo dragon are not dinosauri. Komodo dragon is Squamata and Crocodils are Crocodilia. Only birds developed from dinosauri (Teropodot), but are not considered Teropodots.

    “The “fossil record” is really God’s trash heap. Most living things die without a trace. Only under rare circumstances is the evidence preserved. So of course there are gaps.”

    Charles Darwin claimed so. In his time it still sounded possible. Now we know that the gaps are not a result of missing fossils. The gaps are real.

    • 回复: @anonymous
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  222. dkshaw 说:
    @nsa

    I know nothing of Florida. International.
    SUNY Binghamton happens to be world class, widely recognized as such.

  223. @BamBam Rubble

    I say all that because religion is not necessarily prescriptive of ethical values, and I am one to differentiate morality and ethical values.

    All the religions I mentioned are prescriptive of ethical values, which covers virtually all of the religions that are currently a force in the world.

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    I really see no definitive evidence of that. You may provide examples, if you wish.

    You cannot provide definitive evidence that the present-day morphological, physiological, or behavioral variants among individuals of a species have implications for evolutionary success. Yet you believe that to be the case, for that belief is the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

    So, no, I cannot give definitive evidence that, going forward, Judaism, say, will affect the evolutionary success on its adherents relative to the adherents of political correctness or voodoo. But one can surely find examples of the impact of religions faith on the success or failure of particular human groups: the followers of Jim Jones, for example, or David Koresh, or the followers of Moses in Nazi-dominated Europe, although I am not quite sure how to score the last example. In the short run, the consequences of Judaic belief were more or less disastrous, yet the survivors driven abroad seem to have done well.

  224. anonymous[327]• 免责声明 说:
    @j2

    We all know meosis. It cannot create totally new genes. Find a way that can explain how an intron can get 10 or so mutations so that it codes a really different protein and the gene variant is not only an allele of an existing one.

    Introns don’t code proteins. I have no idea where you are getting this from. You are the only person I’ve ever seen who claims that you need “10 or so” mutations to introns to change gene expression. You have not even come close to showing that this is the case. When asked for a source, you cite yourself and your own reasoning. Or you tell people to find it themselves. If you ever want your pet theories to be taken seriously, then you should cite something other than yourself that supports your claims.

    • 回复: @j2
    , @j2
  225. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Che Guava

    但是,我认为从 WP 中提取事实在大多数情况下几乎没有价值,并且不能解释从那里到蝙蝠的原因。

    我一直对飞行的进化感到困惑,我相信这种发展是不完全了解的。 据我所知,过渡将从提供更好游泳能力的蹼脚开始。 随着时间的推移,织带变大,生物游得更远。 这使它们能够逃脱捕食者并到达新的无捕食者环境,例如小岩石岛上的洞穴。 即使是不适合飞行的小翅膀也能提高从岩石峭壁上跳跃的能力。 在洞穴的保护环境中,它们失去了视力,翅膀的进化仍在继续。 最终机翼变得足够大可以飞行。

    请原谅我再次引用维基百科,但飞行发展的另一条途径是树栖。 飞鼠已经从它们在树上的栖息地进化出滑翔能力。 再过 20 万年,它们可能会进化出飞行。

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel

    我同意你回复的其余部分。

    • 回复: @Che Guava
  226. j2 说:
    @anonymous

    “Introns don’t code proteins.”

    introns code proteins. introns are the pieces of a gene that code proteins. They are the protein-coding part of the genome.
    #Introns were first discovered in protein-coding genes of adenovirus,[4][5] and were subsequently identified in genes encoding transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA genes# (do not be confused by the language, it means they code proteins)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron

    “If you ever want your pet theories to be taken seriously, then you should cite something other than yourself that supports your claims.”

    You find some references from this post:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/09/26/viruses-in-evolution/

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
    , @anonymous
  227. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @BamBam Rubble

    I think it most improbably that these systems of belief are equivalent in their impact on the evolutionary success of their adherents.

    I really see no definitive evidence of that. You may provide examples, if you wish.

    To cite an extreme case, the Shakers have died out, because they do not believe in having children. Beliefs regarding birth control and medical care also have an effect.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  228. j2 说:
    @anonymous

    “You are the only person I’ve ever seen who claims that you need “10 or so” mutations to introns to change gene expression. ”

    I have never said so. You just do not understand. I have said that one-two mutations gives you new alleles, which naturally change the gene expression. But they cannot change reptile skin to feathers or hair. In order to make the large changes, like give a shrew a wing of a bat, you need to have essentially different proteins and therefore you need essentially different introns. DNA is first coded to RNA and then to proteins, but essentially it is so that DNA codes protein via RNA. The protein-coding parts are called introns.

    “When asked for a source, you cite yourself and your own reasoning. If you ever want your pet theories to be taken seriously, then you should cite something other than yourself that supports your claim”

    Very obviously you have never written original scientific papers, I have. The idea is not to refer to somebody else’s result. The idea is to present your own results.

    “I have no idea where you are getting this from.”

    It is because you do not know the field.

    “Or you tell people to find it themselves.”

    Yes, if the person asks an idiotic question that he either should know or should look himself from the literature/web. Like, if you start questioning of what is the average mutation rate and want a source for this well-known figure, well, that you should know and if you do not know you should look it up. It is about the same as asking what is your source for the gravitation acceleration 9.81 m/s2. Such things do not need sources, readers should know them, at least those readers who start questioning the values. First check if you are correct, do not do propaganda as an anonymous commenter.

  229. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    Crocodiles and Komodo dragon are not dinosauri. Komodo dragon is Squamata and Crocodils are Crocodilia. Only birds developed from dinosauri (Teropodot), but are not considered Teropodots.

    Crocodiles and dinosaurs are both descended from archosaurs. So they are cousins, and the Komodo dragon is a somewhat more distant cousin. All of them I loosely consider dinosaurs based on appearance and age, even though strict taxonomy has separated them. Anyway my point was dinosaurs did not go extinct. They do have living descendants in birds.

    “The “fossil record” is really God’s trash heap. Most living things die without a trace. Only under rare circumstances is the evidence preserved. So of course there are gaps.”

    Charles Darwin claimed so. In his time it still sounded possible. Now we know that the gaps are not a result of missing fossils. The gaps are real.

    证据?

    Even discrediting the trail of fossils would not destroy evolution, because today the evidence from biochemistry is even stronger.

    • 回复: @j2
  230. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    introns code proteins. introns are the pieces of a gene that code proteins. They are the protein-coding part of the genome.

    No. Exons are the protein coding parts of the genome. Introns are removed during the editing which occurs after transcription.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron

    An intron is any nucleotide sequence within a gene that is removed by RNA splicing during maturation of the final RNA product.[1][2] The term intron refers to both the DNA sequence within a gene and the corresponding sequence in RNA transcripts.[3] Sequences that are joined together in the final mature RNA after RNA splicing are exons.

    • 回复: @j2
  231. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    So, I’ll just change the problem tom exon problem. The problem stays exactly the same.

  232. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “Even discrediting the trail of fossils would not destroy evolution, because today the evidence from biochemistry is even stronger.”

    你的意思是进化,即生命从早期形式进化而来,已被证明。 这是没有问题的。 问题是如何,也就是说,进化不是逐渐进行的,而是快速爆发的。 随机突变的问题在于这些突发的稳定性。 如何在太短的时间内获得足够的突变率变化。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  233. anonymous[327]• 免责声明 说:
    @j2

    Introns don’t code proteins. They are part of the non-coding region of a gene. They’re found in protein coding genes, but they have other regulatory functions. I don’t know much clearer I can make this for you. It seems to be you who is confused by the language.

    同样,您博客文章中的任何来源都不支持您古怪的主张。 你的第二个回答是纯粹的愚蠢。 对不起,不值得回复。

    • 回复: @j2
  234. @Hu Mi Yu

    举一个极端的例子,震动者已经灭绝了,因为他们不相信有孩子。 关于节育和医疗保健的信念也有影响。

    是的,一个令人信服的例子。

    对贞洁的承诺在基督徒中反复出现,例如诺斯替派和卡特里派。 显然,这些教派是自我终结的,尽管教会帮助他们加快了前进的步伐。

    支持堕胎的神学也必须趋于自灭,例如苏联共产主义——后共产主义的俄罗斯现在正试图摆脱这种人口后果; 正在进行中的政治正确神学,它让欧洲人民处于其致命的反本土主义控制之中。

    • 回复: @AaronB
  235. MacNucc11 说:
    @Rurik

    太好了,我们都同意达尔文主义是一种宗教。

    • 不同意: Rurik
    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  236. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    你的意思是进化,即生命从早期形式进化而来,已被证明。 这是没有问题的。 问题是如何,也就是说,进化不是逐渐进行的,而是快速爆发的。 随机突变的问题在于这些突发的稳定性。 如何在太短的时间内获得足够的突变率变化。

    给我们看数字。 请记住在您的计算中考虑减数分裂期间交叉导致的表型变化 不能 突变。

    等待…

    • 回复: @j2
    , @j2
  237. MacNucc11 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    化石记录不支持自然选择。 它确实表明物种随着时间的推移而发生了变化,但不是由于突变在种群中形成并传播的结果,而是由于更突然的变化。 换句话说,你并没有开始看到一个略有不同的有机体,然后所有的有机体都逐渐变成那样,而是同时发生了变化。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  238. AaronB 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    Speccy, Cathars 是法国南部 Troubadeur 文化的基础,通常被认为是欧洲创造的最具吸引力和吸引力的亚文化之一,也是浪漫爱情的创造者。

    他们一直蓬勃发展,直到天主教会决定以最大的残暴和流血来粉碎他们,因为如果要开始进步,幸福、安逸和诗意就不能持久。

    此外,在泰国、缅甸、老挝、柬埔寨和锡兰实行的那种上座部佛教提倡独身,但这些国家以快乐、随和、善于交际和相当繁荣的地方以及在世界上很少有其他地方(以及表面上更传统的性习俗)。

    哲学在达尔文目的的效用中是如此明显的矛盾!

  239. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    这与减数分裂无关。 它是突变的。 在给定时间内以突变率获得足够的突变。

    有一个哺乳动物特异性蛋白质超家族 SCGB,其中包含小鼠 ABP 和猫 Fel d 1,根据我帖子中的一个参考文献,它们相差 50%。 因此,蛋白质编码部分相差 50%。 根据帖子中的另一个参考,Fel d 1 的长度为 90 个氨基酸,即 270 个碱基对。 所以 50% 是 135 碱基对差异。 也许这个家族已经是前哺乳动物了,所以在 260 亿年前,哺乳动物在 60 万年前分化,所以获得这些突变的时间是 200 亿年。 200亿年的突变率为0.5* 10-9 *每个碱基对 2*10+8 =0.1 个突变。 获得 135 个突变的概率为 0.1 到 135 倍(270 超过 90),约为 2 到 -222。

    请注意,如果外显子重复并且变异的外显子是伪代码,因为不可能所有中间版本都可以工作,那么选择不会作用于这个伪代码外显子。 突变是随机发生的,就像它们来自用于计算发散时间的 Y-DNA 标记,垃圾 DNA。 这就是为什么我可以计算简单的概率。

    • 回复: @j2
  240. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    #给我们看数字。 请记住在您的计算中考虑减数分裂期间交叉导致的表型变化,而不是突变。#

    如果您的问题是关于灭绝事件后新子类的紧急速度,请查看显示它的图表。 我这里有一个,但没有扫描仪可以寄给你。 在新生代,10 万年(10-61 年)出现了 49 个亚纲,Xenarthra、啮齿目、Litopterna、反刍动物、中爪动物、鲸鱼、马、蝙蝠、食虫目。 你会在中生代开始和 Permi 发现类似的情况。 你知道这一切,但只是想玩。 给我们看数字! 为什么,你知道是这样。 你必须知道。 我在等待你对突变的计算。 你不是专家吗。

  241. j2 说:
    @anonymous

    我是一名数学家,数学家不需要知道特定领域中使用的术语。 我们通过思考而不是通过学习单词来工作。 数学并不古怪或愚蠢。 如果可以的话,请用数字和数学来回答变异问题。 进化中的问题是数学问题。 这不是您要使用的术语和单词的问题。 只有没有答案的人才需要骂对手古怪和愚蠢。 这就是巨魔在他们什么都不知道时所做的事情。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  242. j2 说:
    @j2

    即使您将碱基对的三元组视为一个单位,您获得的概率仍然太小,无法获得足够大且具有现实人口规模的东西。 我更改了术语内含子和外显子,并以三个核苷酸对为单位重新计算。 还是太小了。 理论有问题,不能通过挥手和抱怨术语来消除。

  243. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    我是一名数学家,数学家不需要知道特定领域中使用的术语。 我们通过思考而不是通过学习单词来工作。 数学并不古怪或愚蠢。 如果可以的话,请用数字和数学来回答变异问题。 进化中的问题是数学问题。 这不是您要使用的术语和单词的问题。 只有没有答案的人才需要骂对手古怪和愚蠢。 这就是巨魔在他们什么都不知道时所做的事情。

    所以你的数学很好,你就是不做文字题?

    变异问题的答案在于编码的细节。 你可能想看看这里:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

    大多数 DNA 是非编码的。 编码序列以起始密码子开始,以一个或多个终止密码子结束。 非编码序列(如内含子)可以在不影响生物体活力的情况下发生数亿年的突变。 涉及起始或终止密码子的突变可以关闭蛋白质,或打开以前未编码的 DNA 以创建全新的蛋白质。 突然跳跃,正如你所需要的。

    减数分裂期间的交叉也有帮助,但我已经厌倦了向你解释事情。 我得到了补习的报酬。

  244. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @MacNucc11

    太好了,我们都同意达尔文主义是一种宗教。

    达尔文主义是一种宗教。 进化是一门科学。

    • 回复: @j2
  245. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “达尔文主义是一种宗教。 进化是一门科学。”

    进化是事实。 进化论假装是一种科学理论,但在科学的掩护下是宗教、达尔文主义的思想。 这样的科学理论被称为伪科学。 如果任何科学面临数学问题而拒绝解决它,那么它就是伪科学。

    最后,尝试解决以下问题。 我一直在等待你的回答。 似乎为了让一个群体中任何一个个体的任何单个蛋白质编码部分发生 40 个突变,你需要超过 10 万年,假设突变如你的进化理论所说,来自随机突变而不是其他一些机制,例如通过病毒转移 DNA 或智能设计。 然而你知道,在新生代开始时,在一千万年的时间里发展出许多哺乳动物的亚纲。 根据你的进化论,胎盘哺乳动物大约在 10 万年前从同一个祖先进化而来。 你是说蝙蝠、鲸鱼、啮齿动物、反刍动物没有一种蛋白质与遥远的胎盘哺乳动物物种的蛋白质相差 66% 吗?

    但我可以展示一个。 SCGB 超家族在新生代初期多样化。 猫有蛋白质Fel d 1,它出现在许多亚类中,所以它在10万年中发展起来。 一只老鼠的蛋白质 ABP 与 Fel d 50 相差 1%,这些确实是最接近的,其他的离 Fel d 1 更远。长度似乎是 90 个氨基酸。 我们可以以三个为单位处理 DNA,因此大约有 90 个单位和其中的 45 个变化。 然而,这似乎是不可能的。 如果您认为 CH2 基因突变异常快,我相信您可以找到由其他基因编码的不同蛋白质。 这些哺乳动物亚类看起来如此不同,以至于它们有一些不同的基因。

    而减数分裂与此无关。

    认为:
    外显子大小为 n=100
    外显子突变 k=40
    突变率 0.5* 10 **-9 每 bp 每年
    时间 10 万年 = 10**7
    基因组中的基因 20,000-100,000
    基因中的外显子 10
    个体外显子总数 < 10**6
    人口规模 100亿
    群体中任何个体的外显子总数 < 10**17

    q a bp 的突变概率 = 突变率 * 时间 = 1/200
    来自二项式公式的外显子中 k 突变的概率
    (n 超过 k)q**k(1-q)**(nk) < (n 超过 k)q**k
    =sqrt(48pi)**-1(0.4)**-40(0.6)**-60 2**40 10**-80
    =2** 93 *2**-282 =2**-190 = 10**-57

    一个人的基因组中没有外显子的概率
    比10少**-51

    群体中任何一个个体没有外显子的概率
    比10少**-40

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  246. j2 说:
    @j2

    假设假基因有更高的突变率会导致另一个问题,因为如果外显子是在假基因中进化的,那么它就没有选择压力。 然后令人难以置信的是,这么多突变的结果可能是任何明智的。 随心所欲,何,有问题。

  247. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    认为:
    外显子大小为 n=100
    外显子突变 k=40
    突变率 0.5* 10 **-9 每 bp 每年
    时间 10 万年 = 10**7
    基因组中的基因 20,000-100,000
    基因中的外显子 10
    个体外显子总数 < 10**6
    人口规模 100亿
    群体中任何个体的外显子总数 < 10**17

    您在这里有许多假设,其中一些假设相差了几个数量级。

    群体中任何一个个体没有外显子的概率
    比10少**-40

    而且你的结论在语法上是错误的,难以理解。

    • 回复: @j2
  248. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “ 认为:
    外显子大小为 n=100
    外显子突变 k=40
    突变率 0.5* 10 **-9 每 bp 每年
    时间 10 万年 = 10**7
    基因组中的基因 20,000-100,000
    基因中的外显子 10
    个体外显子总数 < 10**6
    人口规模 100亿
    群体中任何个体的外显子总数 < 10**17

    你在这里有很多假设,其中一些与数量级相差甚远。”

    那会是什么。 外显子大小正确,突变率正确,基因组大小正确,时间正确,基因中的外显子正确。 然后我给你所有的机会和人口规模,把它比应该的要高得多。

    " 群体中任何一个个体没有外显子的概率
    比10少**-40

    而且你的结论在语法上是错误的,无法理解。”

    动词被省略,因为它不是一个句子,看到没有句号。 你很清楚这意味着群体中任何个体的任何外显子有 40 个突变的概率。

    所以,请告诉哪些参数是错误的数量级并进行计算。 你可以理解它,它是非常基础的。 ** 意思是权力,这里不能写成其他方式。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  249. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    所以,请告诉哪些参数是错误的数量级并进行计算。 你可以理解它,它是非常基础的。 ** 意思是权力,这里不能写成其他方式。

    我对你的符号没有问题。 我不同意你的假设和模型。

    时间 10 万年 = 10**7

    首先,我们有数十亿年而不是数百万年。

    外显子大小为 n=100

    外显子大小变化很大。 再次来自维基百科,因为写作比我的好,他们有参考:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon

    在 GenBank 中的所有真核基因中,(2002 年)每个基因平均有 5.48 个外显子。 平均外显子编码 30-36 个氨基酸。 [6] 虽然人类基因组中最长的外显子长 11555 bp,但已经发现几个外显子只有 2 bp 长。 [7] 已经报道了来自拟南芥基因组的单核苷酸外显子。 [8]

    让我们跳过其余的假设,进入只包含一次影响一个碱基对的点缺陷的模型。 还有插入错误和删除错误会同时影响许多碱基对。

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indel

    AFAIK 没有人有足够的指标来测量不同物种 DNA 之间的突变数量。 该问题与使用启发式的数据压缩类似。

    你的分析从头到尾都是错误的。 你的数学很好,但你就是不会做文字题。

    • 回复: @j2
    , @j2
  250. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    ” 时间 10 万年 = 10**7
    首先,我们有数十亿年而不是数百万年。”

    不,问题是 SCGB 蛋白质超家族如何在 10 万年后,从 66 万年前到 56 万年前在胎盘哺乳动物中多样化。 这是10万年,而不是数十亿年。 SCGB 是哺乳动物特有的,假设所有哺乳动物在新生代初期都从早期哺乳动物开始分化,那么我们必须假设第一个胎盘哺乳动物有这个家族的一个版本,并且在 10 万年之后发生了分化。 由于 Fel d 1 可以从几个胎盘哺乳动物的亚纲中找到,它一定是在 10 万年中发展起来的。 你的第一个反对意见是错误的。

    “外显子大小为 n=100
    外显子大小变化很大。”

    它是可变的无关紧要,我们需要平均值。 您引用 Wiki 为“平均外显子编码 30-36 个氨基酸”。 一个氨基酸由三个碱基对编码,因此每个外显子平均为 100 bp。 如果外显子大小大于 100,则获得的概率较小。 只计算那些高于平均水平的外显子,你就会得到足够多的外显子。 问题可以说,没有至少 100 bp 的外显子可以有 40%(或超过)的突变,但有更长的 CH2,有 50%。 如果您进行计算,您必须知道这一点,因此您的第二个反对意见不仅无关紧要,而且是不诚实的。

    “让我们跳过其余的假设,进入只包含一次影响一个碱基对的点缺陷的模型。 还有插入错误和删除错误会同时影响许多碱基对。”

    您的意思是胎盘哺乳动物中没有任何蛋白质与 66 万年前的祖先形式发生 40 多个突变,虽然有些蛋白质差异更大,但它们总是由插入和删除错误引起的。 这种说法几乎肯定是错误的。 如果您声称如此,您应该证明情况确实如此,因为这是极不可能的。

    同时你承认所有其他假设都是有效的。 由于您评论的两个假设也是有效的,因此所有假设都是有效的。

    “AFAIK 没有人有足够的指标来测量不同物种 DNA 之间的突变数量。 该问题与使用启发式的数据压缩类似。 ”

    在此您仅声明没有足够的度量标准来测量两个物种的 DNA 之间的突变。 我的问题不需要这样的指标。 我让你以一种合理的概率从突变中获得 SCGB 蛋白质超家族的方式来解决这个问题。 你还没有做到。

    “你的分析从头到尾都是错误的。 你的数学很好,但你就是不会做文字题。”

    你没有设法表现出任何错误。 您给出的唯一有效评论是我混淆了术语外显子和内含子。 您虽然仍在上课,但作为一名学生,您声称自己是该主题的专家。 然而,我从另一个领域,首先发现进化论中的一个致命问题。 你答不上来,只能说“分析有问题”,又不能说错在哪里。 我给出的问题是提出问题的一种方式,鼩鼱如何发展蝙蝠的翅膀。 难怪你不能回答。 计算表明它不能,不能在那个时间范围内。

    如果在您声称拥有专业知识的领域中遇到问题,并且您声称分析有误,那么您必须能够指出错误。 你不能显示故障。 你有足够的时间来展示它,但你只能提出两个不正确的反对意见。 你确实只是在玩文字,根本没有分析。 你只是声称对手错了,每个人都应该相信学生还在上课。

    放弃吧 胡,你失败了。 难怪,进化论就是宗教。 很难用数学来捍卫宗教。 你只是达尔文主义叶史瓦的学生。

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  251. j2 说:
    @j2

    请注意,为了简单起见,我将碱基对设为基数 2。 他们实际上有基数 4,所以概率仍然要小得多。 但我不需要变得这么低,10**-40 已经足够低了。 只要不影响主要结果,模型总是可以简化的,这里不是。

    您可以拥有比碱基对更多的突变,但它们是碱基 2 中的回复突变。同一碱基对中多个突变的概率低到足以在模型中被忽略。

    通常我会用泊松过程来建立模型,但作为一名生物学学生,我认为最好留在非常基本的概率论而不是去随机过程,因为它可以更好地模拟情况。 如果你愿意,可以用泊松过程计算它,并找出假设平均速率是给定的,40% 碱基对的概率是多少。 结果基本相同。

    “你的分析从头到尾都是错误的。 你的数学很好,但你就是不会做文字题。”
    我想知道你是否真的是中国人。 中国人通常擅长数学和逻辑,这不是典型的中国人评论。

  252. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “让我们跳过其余的假设,进入只包含一次影响一个碱基对的点缺陷的模型。 还有插入错误和删除错误会同时影响许多碱基对。 ”

    我仍然会为此添加反驳您的评论。 你提到的机制比突变更不可能。 它们的影响可以通过增加突变率来包括在内,但有一个更简单的方法:我们可以忽略这些变化,因为反例 Fel d 1 和 ABP 有足够的点突变部分。 Fel d 1 的长度为 90 个氨基酸,因此外显子中有 270 个碱基对。 蛋白质 Fel d 1 和 ABP 具有 50% 相同的部分。 可以重新排序,但我们可以忽略重新排序并只计算 50% 相同的部分和其他更不相同的未重新排序的部分。 产生这些蛋白质的基因具有相同的起源。 即使假设这些中的每一个都只发生了 25% 的变异,您仍然会得到相同的结果(即使如此也足够强大,如果将基数 2 更改为基数 4,则强度会更高)。

    作为结论,您的任何评论都没有显示您声称的假设有任何错误。 您也没有在模型中显示任何错误(这是简化的,但如果您制作一个更完整的模型,结果保持不变,请尝试将您的模型和参数放在注释中)。

    你只能挥手和评论,比如“错误的分析”、“错误的假设”。 你应该能够展示它们,但你不能。 你不是教授使用这样的表达,我是,但我不使用这种模糊的表达,因为人们应该证明自己的主张。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  253. Merlin 说:

    你知道在据说有 558 亿年历史的化石中发现了脂质吗? 更不用说在 68 万年及更久以前的化石中发现的所有其他软组织。 你们有人想从我这里买一座桥吗? 很棒的价格,很多选择。

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  254. @Merlin

    你想说什么?

    你知道尼龙是人类创造的一种新物质吗?
    你知道细菌进化到吃尼龙和其他塑料吗?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria_and_creationism

    您是否知道,当您的主张得到现实世界中可以找到的证据链接的支持时,它具有更高的真实价值?

    我没有看到任何证据表明你拥有一座桥。

    • 回复: @Merlin
  255. Merlin 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    作为原始材料的软组织不会持续数百万年。 如果您足够轻信,相信软组织可以持续数百万年,那么您可以从我这里购买便宜的桥梁而致富。 我会卖给你世界上任何一座桥。 便宜的。

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  256. Che Guava 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    蹼足如何变成翅膀?

    游泳和飞行之间似乎没有什么联系,即使是飞鱼也只有轻微的飞行能力。

    对于其中一种滑翔哺乳动物来说,要发展飞行,它必须是一种独特的形式,因为它们没有任何类似于翅膀的东西。 如您所知,滑翔是基于后肢和前肢之间的膜。

    不过,一个有趣的想法。 你让我猜测可能的机制。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  257. Anon[418]• 免责声明 说:

    宗教权利实际上是另一回事。

  258. @Merlin

    再一次,您没有提供任何真实世界的证据证明您拥有一座桥梁,也没有展示任何真实世界证据表明数百万年前的化石中保存完好/未腐烂的“软组织”(未损坏)。 你提供的只是基于信仰的 ipse-dixit 断言,这是创造论者和他们自发产生的超自然“智能”设计师万神殿的共同主题。
    (ipse-dixit 的意思大约是“因为我说过,因此为真。”)

    你必须是一个“年轻的地球”神创论者。 这是你的天父手工的一个例子,他(用他多余的生殖器官和大写的 H 表示崇敬)设计来测试你的信仰:

    当幼体比目鱼开始进入成年期时,它不仅会经历不均匀的生长突增和情绪波动。 相反,它从一条可爱的、对称的小鱼变成了完全解剖学上的灾难——就像一些无法辨认的物体在学龄前用粘土制成,然后兴高采烈地带回家给父母,父母为了“情感价值”而保留它。
    比目鱼的进化,PBS

    • 回复: @Merlin
  259. 进化,变得更好,不是事实。
    “更好”是一种主观判断。
    物种变化是事实。
    唉,直到现在没有人理解这种变化。
    如果达尔文决定用进化这个词来缓解对创造论者的打击,或者他自己相信人类是物种变化的终结,我们永远不会知道。
    至于生命的起源,我们甚至无法定义生命是什么。
    海底的硫磺生命表明,其他形式的生命也是可能的。
    唯一能够想象出一种完全不同的生命形式的科幻小说作家是天体物理学家弗雷德霍伊尔,在我看来,这是有史以来最好的科幻小说“黑云”。

  260. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Che Guava

    蹼足如何变成翅膀?

    蹼足改善了游泳能力,并允许它们到达可以发育翅膀的孤立的无捕食者区域。 这是对部分发育的翅膀会使生物笨拙且容易受到捕食者的断言的回应。 这当然是猜测。

    我还指出了部分发展飞行的飞鼠。

  261. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    我仍然会为此添加反驳您的评论。 你提到的机制比突变更不可能

    插入和删除错误 ,那恭喜你, 突变,而且它们确实经常发生。 如果您遵循参考文献,您就会知道这一点。 他们以两种方式做出巨大的改变。 首先通过插入和删除蛋白质中的氨基酸链,然后通过改变阅读框来完全改变以下 DNA 的含义。

    此外,我认为您将外显子与成熟和编辑的 mRNA 混淆了。 在编辑过程中可能会发生更多变化。

    • 回复: @j2
  262. @MacNucc11

    化石记录不支持自然选择。

    没说有。 我说化石记录表明有有机进化,即生命形式随着时间的推移而改变。

    当然,有大量证据表明自然选择会发生。 怎么可能不行?

  263. Che Guava 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    哈。 你甚至没有阅读我简明的回复。

    诚然,你试图让 ynur 早先将蹼足和飞行联系起来有一些逻辑的表象确实让我发笑,所以谢谢。

    在写回复之前,请尝试阅读真诚的评论。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
    , @AlreadyPublished
  264. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Che Guava

    好吧,看看蝙蝠。 翅膀是四指和一个退化拇指之间的细长蹼状手指。

    • 回复: @Che Guava
  265. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    首先,我们有数十亿年而不是数百万年。”

    不,问题是 SCGB 蛋白质超家族如何在 10 万年后,从 66 万年前到 56 万年前在胎盘哺乳动物中多样化。 这是10万年,而不是数十亿年。 SCGB 是哺乳动物特有的,假设所有哺乳动物在新生代初期都从早期哺乳动物开始分化,那么我们必须假设第一个胎盘哺乳动物有这个家族的一个版本,并且在 10 万年之后发生了分化。 由于 Fel d 1 可以从几个胎盘哺乳动物的亚纲中找到,它一定是在 10 万年中发展起来的。 你的第一个反对意见是错误的。

    新生代初期的早期哺乳动物与今天一样具有遗传多样性。 在这一点上,这种蛋白质的遗传变异已经进化了数十亿年。 携带不同版本这种蛋白质的不同个体进化成不同的物种。 假设共同祖先中只存在这种蛋白质的一个版本是错误的。 实际上,您假设神创论是真实的来证明 ID。

    • 回复: @j2
  266. @Che Guava

    这是一只鸟,它是一架飞机,不! 这是华莱士的飞蛙! 位于马来西亚和婆罗洲的热带丛林中,这个星球上少数几种空中两栖动物之一是华莱士的飞蛙。 这些节俭而敏捷的青蛙大约有 4 英寸(大约一个茶杯的大小),它们会惹恼和纠缠它们的捕食者。 这种青蛙以英国博物学家阿尔弗雷德·罗素·华莱士(首先研究和描述这些物种的人)的名字命名,以在距其所在地近 50 英尺的地方跳伞而闻名。 许多原因促成了它们“飞行”的原因。 它们可能面临捕食者、寻找猎物、试图交配,甚至试图产卵的危险。 不管是什么原因,这种两栖动物是最大的两栖动物之一。

    在了解了它们为什么“飞”之后,我很好奇如何学习。 我必须了解其如此独特的防御和交配机制的科学和物理学。 当它们跳跃时,它们展开四只蹼足,捕捉周围的空气。
    http://blogs.bu.edu/biolocomotion/2011/09/22/wallaces-flying-frog/

    谁笑到最后……

    Hu Mi Yu - 迟来的感谢您对我的“石油生活”网站的积极反馈,感谢您的浏览。 推荐给卑尔根大学地球科学系主任学习。

    • 回复: @Che Guava
  267. Gavin Cato 说:

    达尔文主义者断言进化是事实,但他们不能给出任何动物从爬行动物过渡到哺乳动物或从鱼类过渡到两栖动物的活生生的例子。 现代灭绝,例如渡渡鸟的灭绝,并不是一个物种转变为另一个物种的例子。 繁殖和亚种的兴起也不是这里的问题。 没有人否认微小的变化。 他们还在这里断言生命的起源是一个单独的问题,没有人知道它是如何发生的,等等。如果是这样,那么为什么每一本生物学教科书都觉得有必要推测生命是如何从非生命中产生的?化学品? 有了自然发生和进化,你就无法处理概率定律。 达尔文主义者甚至不会试图解决这个问题,因为他们知道他们不能,并且相信这一切都必须以某种方式发生,因为进化被宣布为事实。

    根据道金斯的说法,进化的最大证据是在相关物种中发现的遗传相似性。 如果这是真的,那么如果所有的生命都是由一位聪明的设计师创造的,那么遗传学会是什么样子? 如果五爪四肢是共同血统的证据,那么如果它们没有共同血统,它们会是什么样子?

    这里有人问是谁创造了设计者(即上帝)。 神学 101 回答了这个问题,你们这些人看起来像个傻孩子。 上帝在时间和空间之外,是自我存在的,不需要创造者。

    所有这一切都可以通过公开辩论来解决,但达尔文主义者拒绝辩论这个问题。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
    , @AlreadyPublished
  268. Anonymous[173]• 免责声明 说:
    @Charlie Baud

    所以,我认为你在投射。 和说谎。 你是什​​么,民主党女权主义者?

  269. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Gavin Cato

    根据道金斯的说法,进化的最大证据是在相关物种中发现的遗传相似性。

    理查德·道金斯(Richard Dawkins)是一位政治活动家和科学主义的普及者。 他自称是进化生物学家,但实际上他是达尔文主义者。 他于 2008 年退休,他对生物化学和微生物学的最新进展没有权威。 如果你想了解进化论,他的书就是浪费时间。

    所有这一切都可以通过公开辩论来解决,但达尔文主义者拒绝辩论这个问题。

    在我看来,我们在这里进行了相当激烈的辩论。

  270. Merlin 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    当然,我拥有无数的桥梁。 你可以相信我的话。
    至于软组织,我想每个人都知道它在古代化石中经常被发现。 第一个发现请见 Mary Sweitzer。 她是进化论者。
    是的,我相信一个年轻的地球。 “558 亿”年前的软组织证明地球还年轻。

  271. @Gavin Cato

    ……但他们无法给出任何过渡动物的活生生的例子。


    (没有比拒绝看见的人更盲目的了)

    每个有机体都在“转型”。 然而,人类生命的短暂持续时间并没有让我们在实际的运输方式上看到太多。 我们所看到的只是活生生的快照,加上受熵影响的化石。

    神论不通 神可以存在于时间和空间之外的想法纯属猜想, 旨在避免死亡现实的不科学的一厢情愿. 所有形式的宗教和灵性都是如此,它们需要一个超自然的非物质、非物质领域,我们所居住的宇宙的属性在那里不成立。

    这就是为什么今天反对进化的战争仍在肆虐,尽管所有趋同的证据都支持 科学中第二个最成功的理论. 神创论者不攻击 科学中最成功的理论,量子力学,因为它不会破坏他们对来世天堂的一厢情愿的想法。 这就是它真正归结为。

    进化论者总是欢迎辩论,因为它有助于理论的发展。
    相比之下,亵渎、亵渎、教条和焚烧异端则是宗教的标志。

    • 回复: @Merlin
  272. @The Alarmist

    关键词是理论,它同样适用于神创论和达尔文主义。 我无法想象一个进化论者会说达尔文主义不是一种理论。 同时从个人经历中得知,绝大多数神创论者相信并声明创造是一个事实。

  273. @AlreadyPublished

    宗教是娱乐,神秘是它的吸引力。 除去这个谜团,它就会不复存在。

  274. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “插入和删除错误是突变,它们确实经常发生。 如果您遵循了参考资料,您就会知道这一点。 他们以两种方式做出巨大的改变。 首先通过插入和删除蛋白质中的氨基酸链,然后通过改变阅读框来完全改变以下 DNA 的含义。

    此外,我认为您将外显子与成熟和编辑的 mRNA 混淆了。 在编辑过程中可能会发生更多变化。”

    你无法证明进化论所暗示的机制中的进化能够创造出 10 万年后出现的哺乳动物亚种。 进化论者可以这样做,因为这将是一个很好的结果,他们会这样做。 他们都没有做到,这表明他们做不到。 你不能这样做,从你的回答中可以清楚地看出这一点。

    有非常严重的问题,你似乎不明白。 一个是,如果你继续改变 DNA 的蛋白质编码部分,经过几次突变后,蛋白质几乎肯定不会做任何有用的事情。 相反的想法是,远处端点之间的每个中间步骤都是有用的。 这似乎非常不可能。 由于中间步骤无用且可能有害,因此仅当此 DNA 部分是假基因时,突变扫描才会累积。 那么它就不会被选择,也没有机制可以将它引向有用的东西。 你甚至没有提到这个问题。

    我给了你一个更简单的,你也解决不了。 如果 100 个碱基对 k 突变,您可以计算到达一个 DNA 单位的概率,其中 k 是任何大于 27 的数字,您可以得出结论,它不会发生。 不在一个外显子中。 然后你只需要找到两种蛋白质,它们在 10 万年里从同一种祖先形式发展而来,并测量需要多少突变。 您的突变扫描是插入或删除问题或其他任何问题。 就数他们吧。 但是你不能解决这个问题,这已经可以看到了。 所以你试图混淆问题。 所以,既然你无法解决这个更简单的问题,请尝试解决更难的问题,当它们没有选择压力时,突变如何引导到某个地方?

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  275. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “新生代初期的早期哺乳动物与今天一样具有遗传多样性。 在这一点上,这种蛋白质的遗传变异已经进化了数十亿年。 携带不同版本这种蛋白质的不同个体进化成不同的物种。 假设共同祖先中只存在这种蛋白质的一个版本是错误的。 实际上,你假设神创论是真实的来证明身份。”

    胡,别开玩笑了。 在 543 亿年前,只有单细胞生物。 你不能认真地暗示 SCGB 蛋白质超家族已经存在于单细胞生物中。 确实,由于这个家族只限于哺乳动物,340亿年是最早的可能时间,但这个超家族似乎只存在于胎盘哺乳动物,所以100亿年。 哺乳动物的亚类在50万年前就已经发展了,所以50万年是最长的,时间不够。 您要么无法仔细思考,要么故意混淆问题。 我不会再和不诚实的学生讨论了。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  276. @BamBam Rubble

    “TofE 是基于证据和科学方法的最佳解释。”

    它也不是基于。 这是一个循环的宗教教条。

  277. Che Guava 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    好照片,不是你的。 你真可怜,我已经花了很多时间看蝙蝠了,所以从它和你的话中什么都学不到。

    显然与滑翔哺乳动物没有联系。

  278. Che Guava 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    我已经知道这个生物了。 所以不要这么傻。 您也可以尝试使站点外部的标记团队拖钓不那么明显。

  279. Merlin 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    “每个有机体都在“转型”。 然而,人类生命的短暂持续时间并没有让我们在实际的运输方式上看到太多。 我们所看到的只是活生生的快照,以及受熵影响的化石。”

    我们在一生中看不到的转变,我们在化石记录中也看不到。 事物以化石的形式出现,在一段时间内保持不变,然后消失,有时以生物物种的形式出现不变。 没有明确的过渡化石。

    “加上受熵影响的化石。” 当然,在 68 至 558 亿年前的化石中发现的脂质和其他软组织除外。 那里没有熵。 我读到胶原蛋白的“半衰期”大约是 2000 年。 这对你来说是正确的还是胶原蛋白是一个无熵区?

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  280. Che Guava 说:

    好吧,你们这些混蛋。 这种青蛙物种离灭绝有多近? 我从未在野外见过它,但从未住在它的栖息地附近。 它是滑翔机,不是飞行器,而且是近乎独特的,之前几乎是我自己养的,但主题是胎盘哺乳动物(好吧,我说的是所谓的飞鱼,它甚至滑翔得不好),青蛙也不行。 对于它从那里去飞行,是不可想象的。

    无论如何,一些蛇也能够滑翔,更难想象它们是如何从那里飞到空中的。

    无论如何,真诚地感谢您成为一个有趣的巨魔标签团队,并使其显而易见。

    干杯。

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  281. @Hu Mi Yu

    我还指出了部分发展飞行的飞鼠。

    没有部分发育的飞行,在手指或四肢之间伸展的薄膜瓣,或从身体伸出的其他东西,不是翅膀。 这些各种各样的滑翔动物只是在下降,而不是飞行。

    真正, 供电 飞行需要大量的代谢、解剖、感官和肌肉骨骼改造才能发挥作用。 这就是为什么一个人不能简单地通过制造一对巨大的人造翅膀和拍打他的手臂来飞行。 我们太重了,我们没有肺活量,我们没有心血管力量,我们不能吃或消化足够的卡路里来提供所需的能量,我们的肩关节缺乏弹性,我们的胸部肌肉远不及够深, 等等

    要从不会飞的动物变成会飞的动物,需要有机体的彻底转变。 生物的每一部分都必须重新调整用途和重新配置。

  282. @Merlin

    神创论者除了基于信仰的断言之外,就没有其他能力吗? 您仍然没有提供对现实世界的链接、网址和参考。
    地图不是领土。
    只有领土才是领土。

    • 回复: @Merlin
  283. @Che Guava

    这种青蛙物种离灭绝有多近?
    ============

    我不知道,也不在乎。 你的问题根本不相关,创造性地设计来分散你对“逻辑”有缺陷的借口的注意力。 青蛙埋葬了你的企图 呼吁嘲笑 谬论,导致你失去情节。 让我再次为那个谬论揉揉你的鼻子:

    诚然,你试图使 ynur [原文如此] 更早的联想 蹼足和飞行有一定的逻辑性 确实让我笑了, 那谢谢啦。

    新的 广告人身攻击 谬论也很有启发性,你们这些“白痴”、“混蛋”和“巨魔”。
    (我确实希望美国人扩大他们有限的词汇量。)

    请注意,此页面上 99% 的个人虐待来自崇拜神灵的创造论者,这与文章的前提和标题相矛盾,并且随着……支持进化的物理证据而使虐待升级!

    就像他的粉丝一样,神秘而神秘的智能设计师是 也是一种可恨的生物。

  284. Merlin 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    Google Mary Schweitzer 或恐龙中的软组织。 让我再说一遍; 施魏策尔是进化论者。 你显然没有关注进化/ID/创造的争论。 作为一个例子,你知道或者你能描述迈克尔贝赫的不可约复杂性论证吗? 你想要真实的世界吗? 阅读 Behe 的《进化的边缘》。

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  285. @Merlin

    Google Mary Schweitzer 或恐龙中的软组织=

    不,谢谢。 我不是在做你的家庭作业。 顺便说一句,558 亿年前没有恐龙。

    Behe 和他的“不可简化的复杂性”胡说八道被达尔文本人在《物种起源》中揭穿,这是一本创造论者拒绝阅读的书。 让我引用我的副本......

    假设眼睛可以通过自然选择形成其用于调整不同距离的焦点、接纳不同数量的光以及校正球面像差和色差的所有可模仿的装置,我坦率地承认,这似乎是荒谬的在最高程度。 当第一次说太阳静止,地球转动时,人类的常识宣布这个学说是错误的; 但那句老话 Vox populii, Vox Dei正如每个哲学家都知道的那样,在科学上是不可信的。 理性告诉我,如果可以证明存在从简单和不完美的眼睛到复杂而完美的眼睛的许多等级,每个等级对它的拥有者都是有用的,这是肯定的; 如果进一步,如果眼睛发生变化并且变化被遗传,同样肯定是这种情况; 如果这种变异对任何在不断变化的生活条件下的动物都有用,那么相信自然选择可以形成完美而复杂的眼睛的困难,尽管我们的想象力无法克服,但不应被视为对该理论的颠覆。 神经如何变得对光敏感,与生命的起源相比,我们最关心的是; 但我要说的是,由于一些无法检测到神经的最低等生物能够感知光,因此它们的 sarcode 中的某些敏感元素聚集并发展成神经,赋予这种特殊的感觉似乎并非不可能灵敏度。
    [...]
    可以称为眼睛的最简单的器官由视神经组成,被色素细胞包围并被半透明皮肤覆盖,但没有任何晶状体或屈光体。 [……]上述简单性质的眼睛无法清晰视觉,只能用于区分光明和黑暗。
    – 物种起源,第 172 页。

    (删除冗余文本以减少我目前非常酸痛的右臂打字!(滑囊炎))

    达尔文随后解释说,海星鱼的抑郁症的发展为这种动物提供了关于光的方向的信息,以及真正的视觉是如何只有一两步之遥。 (我可以用更少的词来解释,再次减轻我的打字负担!)
    但请自己阅读完整的文本。

    顺便说一句,感谢你没有屈服于虐待。

    • 回复: @j2
    , @j2
    , @Merlin
  286. 这就是为什么一位明智的达尔文进化论者认为宗教信仰与进化科学研究之间没有冲突的原因。 事实上,它说明了为什么一个明智的进化论者可以,也许永远应该是宗教信仰的代表:

    没有宗教层面,对人类自由的承诺很可能会减弱,因为太弱而无法以自己的名义做出牺牲。

    尤其是欧洲的政治精英,但其公民当然也相信自由和民主,但他们不愿意在自由需要捍卫者的时候搁置“美好生活”并将生命置于危险之中——在巴尔干地区、苏丹、达尔富尔或中东。

    从欧洲的角度来看,人类自由的好处必须与实际为之奋斗的风险和成本进行权衡。

    它不再是超越的、绝对的。

    在这样一个由狭隘功利主义计算统治的世界中,牺牲是罕见的,教堂无人看管,随着时间的推移,产生我们所知的西方一切的精神资本有可能消失。

    让我列举五件事,它们可能会扭转局面,甚至可能开始,如果我这么大胆地建议,振兴欧洲。

    第一,把握它在世界历史上的独特地位,更新这些原始理想的重要性和来源。

    其次,有些人认为文化很重要,而欧洲文化是西方基督教文明(过去称为基督教世界)最具形成力的文化。

    第三,接受一个越来越团结的大洲的社会、政治、经济,特别是军事责任。

    第四,认识到过于明显的人口现实和伊斯兰化,并加紧扭转它们以避免最终的欧亚大陆。

    最后,在我作为基督徒的估计中最重要的是,引发了第二次伟大的宗教改革,在精神上,从葡萄牙和爱尔兰的最西海岸开始,在整个大陆上对上帝的精神有更广泛的认识和感动和英国到俄罗斯最东部的草原。

    我每天都为这种转变和觉醒祈祷。

    泰德·马洛克: 欧洲进步主义的新黑暗时代

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  287. Bronson 说:
    @Rurik

    哇......这些亲进化评论中的灌输水平是 . 人们 SOOOOO 害怕承认他们什么都不知道——一切都必须放在 PTB 给你的两个愚蠢的盒子里。 仅仅因为你在学校的“考试”中获得了“A”,并不意味着你很聪明或知识渊博——只是因为你是一只好鹦鹉。 或许除了神创论还有另一种选择 or 演化?

    作为一名生物化学家,我不再相信“进化”,因为它在研究酶的同时在研究生院宣传。 使细胞每时每刻都保持活力的复杂程度——一个自我复制、自我修复和自我修改的系统——绝不会是偶然的。 此外,没有人解释过那些“愚蠢的分子”似乎确切地知道要做什么,以及如何去做。 显然,除了有机分子的随机汤只是“反应”之外,还有更多的东西。

    简单地说,明天,你有可能走进地球上任何地方的森林,当你沿着一条小径走时,你会发现,用完美的草书拼写出一模一样的白杨树叶,“你好, (在此插入姓名),欢迎来到森林,希望您住得愉快!” 现在,您看到连续拼写 5oo 次的可能性有多大——全部相同,全部完美? 好吧,如果你认为这不太可能,那么有人如何解释一个比“意外”发生的复杂一百万倍的系统——比如 DNA 复制 0r 甚至细胞间运输系统?

    进化是一种理论,它有大到可以开卡车的洞——达尔文承认…… 不,这并不能使我成为“创造论者”……

  288. j2 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    “Behe 和他“不可简化的复杂性”的胡说八道被达尔文本人在《物种起源》中揭穿,这是一本创造论者拒绝阅读的书。”

    神创论者可能拒绝阅读达尔文的书,但许多读过这本书的人,像我一样,对书中缺乏任何可靠的论点感到非常失望。 读这本书让我相信达尔文实际上并没有解决物种起源的问题。

    您引用的引文远非揭穿不可简化的复杂性,而是清楚地表明,达尔文相信,在没有证据的情况下,生物体可以通过中间步骤从一种形式进化为一种非常不同的形式,这些都是有用的。 它们不仅必须有用,而且必须略有改进。 这种路径意味着贪婪的优化,在优化的每一步中你都会走向更高的层次。 这种优化策略无法找到绝对最大值,但更重要的是通常除了对起点的微小改进之外找不到任何东西。 也就是说,纯粹从数学上讲,这种策略不应该找到从一个有用的解决方案到另一个非常不同的有用解决方案的路径。 它不应该,因为通常没有这样的路径,通常很远的解决方案之间的每条路径都必须先到达较低的级别,然后才能再次开始爬升。 通俗的讲,就是想爬一个山顶,然后想去更高的山顶。 通常你必须从现在的山顶下来,然后才能开始攀登新的山峰。 从达尔文的这句话中提出的关于中间阶段对有机体都是有用的说法是如此令人难以置信,以至于它肯定需要一个证据或至少是一个非常有说服力的论点。 达尔文不给任何。

    《物种起源》中的整个论点非常值得怀疑。 主要主张是自然选择是动物(和植物)分化为不同物种的原因。 与此相反,可以认为主要原因是将动物种群划分为多个部分的边界(海洋、沙漠、玻璃窗、山脉)。 每个部分的基因组漂移到不同的方向,在足够长的时间内,种群变成不同的物种。 尽管自然选择会发生,但无论有没有自然选择,这都会发生。 反之,如果没有这样的边界,种群就会混合而不会分离。 尽管存在自然选择,但无论是否存在自然选择,这种混合都会发生。 结论是边界是创造新物种的充分必要条件,而自然选择在任何情况下都不会发生在物种的创造中。

    对自然选择的重视源于 19 世纪的经济理论。 自然选择就像自由市场中的竞争,在当时被看作是一种发展的强制力,而实际上是系统中选择的破坏和信息的减少。 进化论是由达尔文的祖父伊拉斯谟·达尔文共济会发明的。 它由共济会传播和宣布科学真理,目的是破坏社会的支柱,在达尔文主义中是信仰的支柱。 在共产主义中,旧体制和财富的支柱,在女权主义和少数族裔的性权利中,是家庭的支柱。 摧毁支柱使得从内部征服一个国家变得更加容易。 它与实际支持这些善意而明智的想法无关。 有趣的是,锡安长老的协议将达尔文主义与尼采主义、社会主义和共产主义归为一类,认为他们知道自己是错误的。 仅此一项就足以让人们开始怀疑达尔文主义。

    事实是,达尔文主义,作为它的现代形式,进化论,基本上是在挥手。 没有什么是可能的,在自然界中观察到的不多,没有评估和比较替代机制,学术界对正统观点的怀疑者被抽走了。 所有这些都表明我们在谈论一种宗教,而不是一门科学。 一个简单的事实是,进化论者无法通过数学挑战来证明突变如何在给定的时间内创建 DNA 的蛋白质编码部分并产生本质上不同的蛋白质,而我们知道这已经发生了。 未能应对这一挑战,以及声称不理解模型的悲惨努力(模型是最简单的,只是一个 DNA 片段和突变/无突变,即二元变化)非常清楚地表明论证水平是什么在进化论阵营。 他们与大屠杀信徒没有什么不同。

  289. j2 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    达尔文本人在《物种起源》一书中驳斥了 Behe 和他“不可简化的复杂性”的胡说八道,这本书创造论者拒绝阅读。 ”

    非凡的主张需要非凡的证据,但达尔文书没有非凡的证据。 进化论者后来的努力也没有明显的证据。 这就是为什么他们非凡的主张没有被证明是正确的,为什么这个领域被正确地称为宗教:宗教是未经证实的东西,但你被禁止批评它。

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  290. Merlin 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    你似乎不知道所有软组织的发现。 我已经告诉过您如何轻松找到这些发现的报告。 我不能在你的键盘上打字。

    “Mary Higby Schweitzer 是北卡罗来纳州立大学的古生物学家,她领导的小组在恐龙化石中发现了血细胞残骸,后来在霸王龙标本 MOR 1125 中发现了软组织残骸,并有证据表明该标本是她死时是怀孕的女性。” 来自维基百科

    “真正的愿景只是一两步之遥。” 好伤心。 开玩笑吧。 哪些简单的突变导致了另一种突变,哪些简单的突变从其他事物中产生了光敏点?

    但首先,请让自己相信软组织通常可以在年龄超过 68 万年的化石中发现。

    • 回复: @AlreadyPublished
  291. Santoculto 说:

    越来越偏右的极左分子往往是最愚蠢的人之一。 罗伯特·林赛·塔德 (Robert Lindsay tard) 和弗里迪 (Freedy) 是一个很好的例子,他们在意识形态的任何方面都无法理性或合理。

  292. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    胡,别开玩笑了。 在 543 亿年前,只有单细胞生物。 你不能认真地暗示 SCGB 蛋白质超家族已经存在于单细胞生物中。

    显然,在进化成更大动物的单细胞生物中存在前体。

    • 回复: @j2
  293. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Che Guava

    主题是胎盘哺乳动物(好吧,我说的是所谓的飞鱼,它甚至不能很好地滑翔)

    不。主题是ID/达尔文主义/进化。 注意到试图结束讨论。

  294. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    如果 100 个碱基对 k 突变,您可以计算到达一个 DNA 单位的概率,其中 k 是任何大于 27 的数字,您可以得出结论,它不会发生。 不在一个外显子中。 然后你只需要找到两种蛋白质,它们在 10 万年里从同一种祖先形式发展而来,并测量需要多少突变。 您的突变扫描是插入或删除问题或其他任何问题。 就数他们吧。

    计算突变在数学上是难以处理的。 当您将插入/删除错误与单个碱基对错误一起抛出时,路径不是唯一的。 顺便说一句,还有其他类型的突变。 单碱基错误不是适应的主要机制。 这是众所周知的,这就是你所证明的。

    • 回复: @j2
  295. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “显然,在进化成更大动物的单细胞生物中存在前体。”

    显然,第一个细胞是所有细胞的前体,这个细胞的基因组是所有基因组的前体,允许从病毒和其他非细胞生物体中注入一些 DNA,但我们还没有走到前体,我们总是必须转到编码超家族 SCGB 蛋白质的基因的最新常见前体。 在某个时间点,出现了该超家族的第一个蛋白质和编码该蛋白质的基因。 该基因是所有编码 SCGB 蛋白的基因的最早前体。 这种最新的前体一定存在于 120 亿年前和 55 万年前之间的胎盘哺乳动物中。 我已经写过,如果你再写这种不诚实的评论,我不会再和你讨论了。 你的这个评论又是不诚实的。 你一定知道,你总是要拿最新的前兆,所以你只能试着混淆。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  296. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “计算突变在数学上是难以处理的。 当您将插入/删除错误与单个碱基对错误一起抛出时,路径不是唯一的。 顺便说一句,还有其他类型的突变。 单碱基错误不是适应的主要机制。 这是众所周知的,这就是你所证明的一切。”

    路径从来都不是唯一的,因为您总是可以进行任意次数的突变和回复突变,但是您可以检测点突变、插入、删除并很好地猜测最有可能需要多少突变。 如果你的论点是正确的,就不可能找到两个基因发生分歧的时间,但研究人员可以根据突变做得很好。 因此,您提出的问题比在实践中要困难得多。

    你有 Fel d 1 和 OBP 蛋白(Fel d 1 大小 90 氨基酸),根据我提到的参考文献,它们有 50% 相同的部分,这意味着其余部分不太相同,因为文章认为这些蛋白质具有相同的祖先. 从这个数据可以得出结论,基因有很大的部分,有很多点突变。 如果它们有大的缺失和插入,它们就不会被称为 50% 相同的片段。 你有什么样的突变完全无关紧要。 它们不需要是停止突变。 很简单,在 25 bp 片段中已经有 27-100 个突变在 10 万年内无法完成,您可以计算出在 50 万年内可以完成多少。

    同样,您没有任何有效的论据,并且您试图混淆问题。 这变得太沉闷了。 要么提出有效的论点,要么停止。

    由于您显然无法解决时间问题,请尝试解决外显子如何在远离起点的地方发生变异的问题,因为如果它变异得很远,很可能中间版本没有用或没有改进并且不会被选择采用,但是如果它变异为假基因,那么就没有选择来引导突变,它是完全随机的,一无所获。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  297. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    略读的回报。

    好的评论,或者更好的是,那里有一个非常好的引述。
    信息链接,也是。

    谢谢。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  298. @j2

    科学很少涉及 证明. 但是你这种浪费时间的反科学灵长类动物总是要求 证明,一遍又一遍,令人作呕,无视所有趋同的证据,支持你的一厢情愿。

    请注意我发布的弹涂鱼照片的回应,他们声称进化论者从未提供中间动物的证据。 你在诡辩上的绝望和无聊的努力实际上并不复杂。

    “宗教是未经证实的东西”——这只是一个赤裸裸的谎言。 什么时候 I 用一个词说 Humpty-Dumpty thecreationist,用一种相当可恨的语气,它的意思是 任何适合我的议程。

    1)
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis
    2)
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory
    3)
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion
    ►“一套 信仰 关于宇宙的原因、性质和目的, 特别是当被认为是创造了一个超人的机构时 或机构, 通常涉及虔诚和仪式性的仪式,并且经常包含 规范人类事务行为的道德准则
    (该道德准则包括对异端的辱骂,如 证明 在此页面上重复。)

    此外,在你为了符合你的恶意议程而破坏萨根的名言之前,它是这样的......

    “非凡的主张需要非凡的证据”

    • 回复: @j2
    , @j2
  299. @Merlin

    我不能在你的键盘上打字

    在您自己的键盘中输入搜索参数,然后发布网址。
    我不做 的课 在家工作。 我已经告诉过你了。

    • 回复: @Merlin
  300. @peterAUS

    好报价

    很高兴有人喜欢它。 它提请注意宗教在决定文明命运方面的作用——通过其对制度和个人行为的影响。 换句话说,它断言宗教信仰,在它存在的地方,是自然选择必须对其起作用的人类群体的特征。

    理查德·道金斯(Richard Dawkins)等进化论者嘲笑宗教,因为它基于与科学真理不一致的命题,这是对他们自己声称的科学专业知识的嘲弄。 宗教信仰没有理由应该基于字面的科学真理,就像童谣、童话或史诗应该基于字面的科学真理一样。 事实上,宗教,就像童谣、童话或史诗一样,如果没有超自然的元素,就没有什么吸引力。 从达尔文的角度来看,重要的是信仰,或者就此而言,童谣、童话或史诗如何塑造个人和群体的行为。

    在放弃基督教的过程中,西方放弃了对是非绝对价值的信仰,因为休谟主张“诚实是最好的政策,但聪明的无赖会利用每一个例外”。 或者实际上,情况比这更糟糕。 今天,许多人不仅认为无情地自私自利是愚蠢的,反而认为不这样做是愚蠢的。 我们知道这将苏联引向何方,但西方愚昧的统治者毫不犹豫地走向了同一方向。

    这并不是说所有宗教都是平等的。 正如上文所指出的,许多已证明对人类福利极为不利,而另一些则显然对信徒团体的成功做出了巨大贡献。

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  301. j2 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    不完全是这样。 被称为真理的东西,被证明的科学事实,是要被证明的,而不是被提供证据的。 在物理学中,没有人声称某事已被证明为事实,因为它们不是被证明的事实。 可能发生了一次大爆炸,但有人会来争辩说事实并非如此。

    但在进化论中并非如此。 这里有一群人声称进化论已被证明,新达尔文主义是事实,质疑它的人必须被清除。 这种态度被称为宗教态度,这种信仰被称为宗教信仰。

    有被证明的事实,不仅在数学中。 在所有科学中,都有一些事实已经被证明和解释得非常好,以至于它们都是被证明的事实。 不仅有证据证明这一点。 我让你通过计算证明 Fel d 1 和 ABP 蛋白的基因在可能的时间范围内发生了分歧。 这是一个简单的问题。 你应该能够回答它。 是你声称进化有效。 然后展示它如何在这个简单的案例中工作。 如果你能解释清楚,只需几分钟。 但是您没有解决方案,因为您的理论并没有解释这是如何发生的。 那些声称有解释的人有责任证明它是正确的。 任何一个矛盾都表明你的理论是不正确的。 如果它不是一个完整的解决方案,那么它就是一个解决方案,并且不能显示出正确或不正确的方法。 如果是这样,进化论就不是科学事实,而是一种研究计划,一种方法。 如果你像其他人在他们的领域那样对待它,那就太好了,但不,你声称这是真的,真相。 你已经找到了真相。 奇怪的是,你无法回答关于你的真理,一个经过验证的科学理论的简单问题。

    实际上,对达尔文主义的支持很少。 几乎没有什么可以支持生命从非生命诞生。 没有什么可以解释第一个细胞的诞生。 没有什么可以解释不同主要物种分支的诞生。 只是AlreadyPublished和胡说的。 胡写道,他刚刚参加了一门课程,所以他是一名学生。 AlreadyPublished 表示你最近才发表一篇论文,所以几乎是一个学生。 对于非凡的主张学生和几乎学生需要的不仅仅是证据,你需要说服人们,你需要证据。 不是数学证明,而是让观众信服的证明。 不幸的是,您只有一些证据可以进行多种解释。 您需要做的是以令人信服的方式解释为什么对您的证据的其他解释是不正确的。 也就是说,你需要证明你的论点是最正确的。

    “一组关于宇宙的原因、性质和目的的信念,特别是当被认为是一个或多个超人机构的创造时,通常涉及虔诚和仪式仪式,并且通常包含管理人类事务行为的道德准则

    在最古老的宗教萨满教中,没有道德准则。 并非所有宗教都有超人的代理权。 儒家是没有神灵的宗教,虽然尊崇祖先的精神。 无神论和共产主义是没有超自然生物的宗教,尽管其中一些人相信当时的精神之王。 达尔文主义当然是一套关于宇宙的原因、性质和目的的信念。 发表无人阅读的论文当然是一种仪式。 显然,这是一种仪式。 该宗教坚持要求牧师(医生和教授)每年都进行这种仪式。

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  302. j2 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    “请注意我张贴的弹涂鱼照片的回应,他们声称进化论者从未提供中间动物的证据。 你在诡辩方面的绝望和无聊的努力实际上并不复杂。”

    你喜欢揭穿幼稚的反例并忽略那些困难的反例。 当然,众所周知,有许多中间动物。 让我们以鲸鱼的气孔为例。 鲸类发育于新生代初期,目前的观点认为,鲸类是由中爪类进化而来的,大约在57万ybp左右。 早期的鲸鱼没有气孔,而现代的鲸鱼有气孔。 天真的人可能会说,气孔是怎么逐渐出现的,首先是一个只钻了一半的孔吗? 但这自然不是这样。 在这种情况下,发展是渐进的。 气孔是鼻孔,在大约 47 万年的时间里,它逐渐从鼻子靠近眼睛。 只是外观看起来像是上颚上的一个新孔,但它是同一个旧的鼻孔。

    是的,这就是像你这样的人试图做的。 揭穿简单和错误的反例,忽略困难的反例。 现在,证明在大灾难之后的每个快速进化阶段,没有蛋白质编码 DNA 片段突变得比它应该有的更快。 为了论证进化是通过你提出的机制发生的,你应该这样做。 事实证明,胡指出,没有数据可以估计物种之间 DNA 的差异以提供这一证明(是的,证明在数学上是可能的,可以在生物学中证明,证明机制可以在一定的尊重)。 因此,它没有显示并且理论是挥手的。

    物种进化到自然选择的另一种理论是障碍和具有瓶颈的遗传漂移。 可以证明这种替代机制已经发生了很多次。 它导致不同的物种,不需要自然选择。 它的问题在于它不会自然地导致更高的生命形式,只会导致不同的生命形式。 您如何证明在鲸鱼等进化过程中,该机制主要依赖于自然选择而不是其他机制? 你不能。 表明进化已经发生与表明它以新达尔文主义所说的方式发生不同。

  303. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    这种最新的前体一定存在于 120 亿年前至 55 万年前的胎盘哺乳动物中。 我已经写过,如果你再写这种不诚实的评论,我不会再和你讨论了。 你的这个评论又是不诚实的。 你一定知道,你总是要拿最新的前兆,所以你只能试着混淆。

    我称之为热空气或规避。 无需进一步讨论。

  304. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    路径从来都不是唯一的,因为您总是可以进行任意次数的突变和回复突变,但是您可以检测点突变、插入、删除并很好地猜测最有可能需要多少突变。 如果你的论点是正确的,就不可能找到两个基因发生分歧的时间,但研究人员可以根据突变做得很好。 因此,您提出的问题比在实践中要困难得多。

    点突变不是基因变化的主要原因。 所需的点突变数量是对遗传距离的大量高估。

    为了发现两个基因何时发生分歧,他们找到了没有主要插入/缺失问题的非编码 DNA 部分用于比较。 可以发现这些非编码部分在不同物种中非常相似的事实是进化的有力证据。

    • 回复: @j2
    , @j2
  305. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    总的来说……同意。

    话虽如此,但不太确定我们所知道的有组织的宗教,特别是基督教,是解决问题的方法。

    最近刚读了一本相关的小说书:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_(Preston_novel)
    我认为,那里有一些有趣的想法。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  306. peterAUS 说:
    @j2

    好帖子

    尤其:

    这里有一群人声称进化论已被证明,新达尔文主义是事实,质疑它的人必须被清除。 这种态度被称为宗教态度,这种信仰被称为宗教信仰。

    ……进化论不是科学事实,它是一项研究计划,是众多方法中的一种。 如果你像其他人在他们的领域那样对待它,那就太好了,但不,你声称这是真的,真相。 你已经找到了真相。

    “一组关于宇宙的原因、性质和目的的信念,特别是当被视为一个或多个超人机构的创造时,通常涉及虔诚和仪式仪式,并且通常包含指导人类事务行为的道德准则。

    达尔文主义当然是一套关于宇宙的原因、性质和目的的信念。 发表无人阅读的论文当然是一种仪式。 显然,这是一种仪式。 该宗教坚持要求牧师(医生和教授)每年都进行这种仪式。

    我觉得“管理人类事务的行为”在那里解释了很多。
    特别是“治理”。

  307. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    胡,当被要求证明新达尔文进化论可以解释新生代初期哺乳动物物种的出现时,要求是你至少可以证明它在给定的时间尺度内在数学上是可能的。 一个没有数学证据证明它是可能的理论不是值得认真对待的理论。 简直就是挥手。 你在很多评论中都非常清楚地表明,你无法提供任何证据证明你所提议的进化方式是完全可能的。 正是该理论的支持者必须证明他们的解决方案有效。 你无法展示它,因此它不是科学理论。 物理学中有理论,而那些人当然试图证明他们的理论是可能的并且没有重大缺陷。 你只是拒绝展示任何东西。 你只是说突变可以是这个或那个,但你没有任何计算表明已知的进化是可能通过你声称它发生的方法。 这是任何理论的重大缺陷。

    你总是试图混淆事物。 一件事是生命是从前世发展而来的。 我们可以称之为进化。 这已经得到了很好的证明。 另一件事是,这种进化是通过进化论中的机制发生的。 这没有被证明。 当你说:“在不同物种中发现这些非编码部分非常相似的事实是进化的有力证据。” 你的意思是第一个问题。 几乎没有人声称进化没有发生。 但这并不能证明进化论是正确的,因为您没有提供任何论据为什么非编码部分相似是由新达尔文进化论的机制而不是由其他一些机制引起的。

    “点突变不是基因变化的主要原因。 所需的点突变数量大大高估了遗传距离。”

    作为进化论的支持者,你的工作就是找出需要多少突变,并证明你的机制可以解释突变的数量,也就是说,这不是太不可能。 如果你不能提供这样的计算,你的理论缺乏科学依据,不能被认真对待,因为我们不知道它甚至在数学意义上是可能的。 最后,你明白了吗? 这是每门真正科学的要求:检查不存在简单的矛盾。 不允许挥手。

  308. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    胡,考虑去一个会议展示你的结果。 演讲结束后是问题。 问这些问题的人都不是白痴。 假设他们对你的回答不满意,你就输了。 提出理论或结果的人必须能够以一种使提问者信服的方式回答问题。 你回避问题,我不相信你能给出答案。 所以我不相信你有你声称拥有的解决方案

  309. @peterAUS

    不太确定我们所知道的有组织的宗教,特别是基督教,是解决问题的方法。

    我不是在提倡某种特定的意识形态。 我的意思是,精英强加给人民的意识形态将决定该群体的生存前景。

    每一种意识形态都会塑造道德情感和假设,因此,无论它是基于对上帝或其他超自然力量的信仰,还是通过宣传、洗脑和惩罚非信徒的方式,都被合理地描述为一种宗教,如与辩证唯物主义,或美国人民自己的地狱和自我毁灭之路,政治正确。

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  310. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    ....精英强加给人民的意识形态将决定该群体的生存前景。

    这是一个有趣的观点。

    现在,让我们假设有那个“全球主义者/前卫”团体。 它有它的精英和相关人群。 绝对是他们的信仰,某种宗教以及所有相关的方法论、基础设施和作品。

    这种意识形态确实看起来……嗯……歪曲了。 尤其是那个“前卫”方面。
    尽管如此,意识形态似乎不会很快下降。 而且这个群体似乎越来越大。 那里只有可见的努力和热情来创造他们想要的世界。
    反对派感觉……温顺。

    当然,事情可能会发生变化。
    事情是如何以及何时发生的。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  311. Alden 说:
    @Jeff Stryker

    西班牙裔不会把任何人赶出加利福尼亚。 他们不会说西班牙语。 他们说他们的母语印度语言和几句西班牙语。

    甚至公立学校也开始将普通话作为一种流行语言。 犹太人在这里是为了留在他们的权力中心。 像布朗州长这样的爱尔兰天主教徒不会去任何地方
    新的爱尔兰天主教私立学校如雨后春笋般涌现,特别是在湾区,延续了那里的悠久传统。

    黑人不会搬到 2 个州以外的犹他州。 像白人一样,随着每次人口普查中西班牙裔印度人口的比例越来越大,他们在人口中所占的比例也越来越小。

  312. @peterAUS

    尽管如此,意识形态似乎不会很快下降。 而且这个群体似乎越来越大。

    你所称的“全球主义者/前卫”团体可能做得很好,但是他们试图通过国家强加的洗脑、宣传和对替代思想的惩罚性压制来将他们的信仰强加于人的群众呢?

    这些人,即“全球主义者/前卫”BS 的目标,例如伦敦、伯明翰、莱斯特、卢顿以及英国和欧洲许多其他城市中心的英国居民,在很大程度上已被种族清洗。

    此外,作为一个整体的欧洲人民正在死去,他们的生育率远低于更替率。 他们正在通过相当于心理战的方法进行种族灭绝。

    这就是人类群体的进化方式。 这不仅仅是关心你自己的事情,而是与其他人的文化搞砸,让他们摧毁自己并为你的团队让路。

    目前,与欧洲人民搞砸的,是亿万富翁阶层,他们控制着媒体,拥有所谓的民主政府,想用一大批无知或无知的移民取代西方国家的平民百姓。对西方文明的承诺,没有民主、法治或其他任何使西方伟大的东西的经验。

    “全球主义者/前卫”想要的是一个可恶的腐败人口,以最低工资或更少的工资从事肮脏的工作,并提供精英们满足他们对权力和性剥削的欲望所需的炮灰和妃嫔。

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  313. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    “全球主义者/前卫”想要的是一个可恶的腐败人口,以最低工资或更少的工资从事肮脏的工作,并提供精英们满足他们对权力和性剥削的欲望所需的炮灰和妃嫔。

    差不多了

    问题是,接收端的(本地)群众看不到它的到来。

    真正的问题是,怎么来/为什么不呢?

    或者......好吧......也许他们应该得到即将到来的一切。

    看来一般人都无法阻止不好的事情发生。 简直太……愚蠢和(智力上)懒惰。 太舒服了,很难思考。 方便为王。

    算一算:互联网“革命”有多少是关于娱乐和购物与真正的学习? 是的…。
    那些“媒体所有者/TPTB”不拥有这些信息。 所有这些都可供任何人使用。 任何愿意找到它并考虑它的人,就是这样。 我们知道的并不多。
    即使是最糟糕的厨师、巨魔和骗子,也比我认识的任何普通人都要高出几英里。
    事实。

    我相信事情必须变得非常糟糕才能开始好转。
    会不会发生,不太确定。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  314. @peterAUS

    问题是,接收端的(本地)群众看不到它的到来。

    ......怎么来/为什么不呢?

    无产者永远看不到即将发生的事情。 这就是为什么他们是无产者。

    大多数社会都为聪明而雄心勃勃的无产者提供了加入精英的途径,通常以次要身份加入精英,但这种能力足以确保前无产者对现有精英的忠诚。

    但任何社会或文明的方向都由少数领导人、精英、统治阶级等决定。 这些人可以获取所有可用信息,并可以通过政治/警察/军事手段将自己的决定强加于人民。

    民主是一种政府制度,旨在使无产者对自己的无能为力视而不见。 群众足够恭顺地投票给精英成员,精英成员通常只组成两个致力于基本相同政策的政党。 在这些政策中,主要指令包括保留社会等级制度,统治精英控制所有重要的权力杠杆。 因此,你有精英学校,精英的孩子在那里混合、交配并加入彼此父母的律师事务所、银行董事会、风险投资公司等,未来的精英在那里接受良好的教育,即他们学习,如果他们有相当好的大脑,为自己思考而不是成为宣传的容器,这是国家资助的群众儿童学校学生的要求。

    看来一般人都无法阻止不好的事情发生。 简直太……愚蠢和(智力上)懒惰。 太舒服了,很难思考。 方便为王。

    人民很大程度上是精英对他们的看法。 “如果”正如美国诗人 TS Eliot 对英国皇家广播委员会所说的那样,“你给了人们他们想要的东西,你开始低估他们,最终败坏他们。” 这就是西方文明的美国化对西方大众所做的事情。 埃利奥特没有说的是,如果你腐化了人民,你最终会摧毁他们。 通过摧毁它们,我的意思是字面意思。 因此,欧洲人民的生育能力崩溃了,他们被教导说唯一的性变态是生殖。

    我相信事情必须变得非常糟糕才能开始好转。
    会不会发生,不太确定。

    问题是:为什么要发生? 统治精英并非偶然摧毁欧洲人民。 现在有一个种族和文化种族灭绝计划非常先进,而且显然是不可阻挡的。 目标? 没有民族认同感,因此也没有民族忠诚度的混血人群。 多样性是独立发展的产物。 我们要拥抱多样性以摧毁它。

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  315. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    同意。

    至于:

    问题是:为什么要发生?

    我更感兴趣的问题是:
    实施的可能时间表/细节是什么,我可以做些什么来(重新)组织我的生活。

    话虽如此,奇迹确实发生了,老鼠和男人的最佳计划等等。

    而且,总有人认为我们开发的武器已经超出了我们的毛细血管来管理它。 例如,前卫化妆和核武器。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  316. Hu Mi Yu 说:

    胡,考虑去一个会议展示你的结果。 演讲结束后是问题。 问这些问题的人都不是白痴。 假设他们对你的回答不满意,你就输了。 提出理论或结果的人必须能够以一种使提问者信服的方式回答问题。 你回避问题,我不相信你能给出答案。 所以我不相信你有你声称拥有的解决方案

    我在会议上发表了我的专业(不是生物学)的论文。 你对科学一无所知。 如果您是数学家,正如您所声称的,您就会知道存在无法用逻辑证明的真命题。 科学家必须用观察和实验来补充逻辑和数学。 由于您拒绝查看数据,因此您永远无法被说服。

    这不仅仅是一个宗教问题。 进化论有实际后果,拒绝它会给其他人带来麻烦。

    进化并没有真正说一个物种起源于另一个物种。 相反,它意味着没有物种这样的东西。 由于遗传变异,假设的物种永远不会繁殖。 由于没有物种这样的东西,我们无法计算物种。 这将普遍广播的关于现有物种灭绝的声明变成了无稽之谈。 我们的进化枝不是物种,而是随着时间的推移平滑地转变和分离。

    神创论与环境激进主义的混合还有其他令人遗憾的后果。 例如,很明显,从来没有任何稳定的工业化前二氧化碳浓度。 化石燃料并不特殊,而是一个正在进行的过程的一部分,该过程将生物质中的碳隔离开来。 燃烧木屑同样有害,但神创论者认为 TPTB 并非如此。

    神创论和医学也不能很好地混合。 因为神创论者不接受基因变异,他们不了解过敏。 我是由虐待我的创造论者抚养长大的; 但我不会告诉你我的问题,我会谈谈我的侄女。 她的父亲是田纳西州的一位创造论者,他吹嘘说,当他的小女儿不吃东西时,他会把它放回冰箱。 在她吃完第一次给她的东西之前,他不会给她任何其他东西吃。 他还拥有一个加油站,并经常抱怨加州要求加油站张贴癌症警告。 汽油无害,他声称,“你甚至可以喝它。”

    好吧,爸爸的小女孩做了所有孩子在没有正确喂养时都会做的事情。 她开始吃对她有害的东西。 她喝了汽油。 这减轻了她的痛苦,但她英年早逝。 劳里死于胃癌。

    我知道这里的人会试图声称 ID 与创造论不同。 有很多方法可以扭曲 ID 的含义,使其符合进化科学,但大多数人并不是这样解释它的。 真的,这只是创造花了数百万年而不是数千年的想法。

    最后我想指出,神创论者/ID 人正在骚扰那些想要研究进化论的人,而不是相反。 我亲眼目睹了数十起事件,从切断教科书的资金到取消研究资助,到将真正的信徒送到生物课上扰乱他们,甚至威胁进行政治暗杀。

    • 回复: @j2
  317. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    “我在会议上发表了我的专业(不是生物学)的论文。 你对科学一无所知。 如果您是数学家,正如您所声称的,您就会知道存在无法用逻辑证明的真命题。 科学家必须用观察和实验来补充逻辑和数学。 既然你拒绝查看数据,你就永远无法被说服。”

    进化论没有得到足够的证明,无法成为一个经过验证的科学理论。 例如,在给定时间框架和我们可以达成一致的其他数据的情况下,缺少一个证据,即所提出的机制的进化甚至在纯粹的数学上是可能的。 你没有提交任何数据,我没有拒绝看数据。 (我获得了数学博士学位,但后来从事信息技术工作。)

    “进化并没有真正说一个物种起源于另一个物种。 相反,它意味着没有物种这样的东西。 由于遗传变异,假设的物种永远不会繁殖。 由于没有物种这样的东西,我们无法计算物种。 这将普遍广播的关于现有物种灭绝的声明变成了无稽之谈。 我们的进化枝不是物种,而是随着时间的推移平稳地转变和分离。”

    你把 DNA 分成进化枝,但有物种。 目前有一个大的物种灭绝浪潮。 新达尔文主义声称不同物种的基因组会随着时间的推移而平滑地转换和分离,但它没有被证明,它可能是不真实的。 从我们可以验证的情况来看,现有物种的基因组是离散的,每个物种都有一个特征基因组。 这种说法是进化研究人员应该能够证明的,但他们不能。

    “神创论与环境激进主义的混合还有其他令人遗憾的后果。 例如,很明显,从来没有任何稳定的工业化前二氧化碳浓度。 化石燃料并不特殊,而是一个正在进行的过程的一部分,该过程将生物质中的碳隔离开来。 燃烧木屑同样有害,但神创论者认为 TPTB 并非如此。”

    燃烧可再生碳源向大气中产生的碳较少,因为这些来源(植物)会生长并将碳从大气中带走。 燃烧化石碳会释放长期不循环的碳,释放它会使地球处于不同的热平衡状态,这意味着它会加热地球。 很长一段时间内的大气二氧化碳图很清楚地表明了这一点。

    “神创论和医学也不好混……”

    我将跳过这一部分。 你与田纳西神创论者的经历虽然令人遗憾,但与达尔文主义是否是有效的科学理论无关。

    “我知道这里的人们会试图声称 ID 与创造论不同。 有很多方法可以扭曲 ID 的含义,使其符合进化科学,但大多数人并不是这样解释它的。 事实上,这只是创造花了数百万年而不是数千年的想法。”

    我不是创造论者,也不是 ID 的支持者。 到目前为止,我什至还没有读过任何关于 ID 的内容。 我根本不认为达尔文主义和新达尔文主义是经过验证的科学理论。 你反对所有类型的创造? 新时空无时无刻不在创造:时间向前,未定的未来便已定。 显然,这是从可能性中创造出时空现实。 当然,这不是达尔文进化论。 那么,您反对创造,或者您可以提出替代方案吗? 也许你所说的创造是指基督教上帝创造时空。 这听起来像是一种宗教观点。 我对达尔文主义的批评不是宗教的,而是数学的。

    “最后,我想指出,神创论者/ID 人正在骚扰那些想要研究进化论的人,而不是相反。 我亲眼目睹了数十起事件,从切断教科书的资金到取消研究资助,到将真正的信徒送进生物课扰乱他们,甚至威胁进行政治暗杀。”

    也许这在美国的一些圣经带州可能是这样。 在科学中,进化论者正在骚扰敢于质疑他们的理论的研究人员。 我在大学当教授时,曾目睹过一起事件:一位教授,甚至是院长,都敢邀请一位 ID 研究员在他的研讨会上发言。 其他教授强烈谴责它,因为美国人会说,好他们没有解雇这个可怜的家伙。 但是在这里我感觉你在骚扰我。 所以让我们停止这种做法。 你相信你的方式,我的方式,我们不同意,这发生了。

    • 回复: @peterAUS
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  318. peterAUS 说:
    @j2

    ......你相信你的方式,我的方式,我们不同意,这发生了......

    呵呵……我只是感觉你不明白信徒是怎么工作的。 任何信徒。
    那个疑惑…………简直无法忍受。 必须去除。 以任何必要的方式。

    • 回复: @j2
  319. Merlin 说:
    @AlreadyPublished

    我复制了 Mary Schweitzer 上维基百科条目的一部分。 你相信进化论者声称存在 68 到 558 亿年的软组织吗? 将“化石中的软组织”复制到您的搜索引擎并选择您信任的条目。 或者你可以对索赔一无所知
    那个进化论者制造了大约 558 亿年前的软组织。

    http://www.icr.org/soft-tissue

  320. @peterAUS

    实施的可能时间表/细节是什么,我可以做些什么来(重新)组织我的生活?

    哈! 你肯定不会指望我回答这些棘手的问题。

    我预计在福克兰群岛定居的英国牧羊人认为他们已经到达了一个安全的避风港,尽管气候恶劣。 然后随着 Argies 登陆并就在海上,所有的地狱都爆发了,他们和英国人进行了迄今为止世界上最后一次海战。

    所以,谁知道往哪里跑。 可能最好留在原地,并与邻居保持良好关系,如果文明突然结束,他们将不得不依赖这些邻居。

    奇迹确实发生了,老鼠和男人的最佳计划等等。

    是的,从来没有一个帝国不分崩离析,通常很快,而且与帝国集团的预期相反。

    鉴于过去几十年技术的惊人进步,美国帝国可能会以惊人的方式分崩离析,而且可能几乎在一夜之间分崩离析。

  321. peterAUS 说:

    哈! 你肯定不会指望我回答这些棘手的问题。

    当然不是。
    曾几何时,我确实希望至少能在网上找到指向这些问题的指针。 当然放弃了。 在 Windoze 2000 和 2003 之间的某个时间。

    ……迄今为止,世界上最后一次海战是什么。

    西方军队最后一次与或多或少平等的对手进行武装交战。
    尤其是血腥的步兵。

    可能最好留在原地,并与必须依赖的邻居保持良好关系……

    差不多了

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  322. j2 说:
    @peterAUS

    peterAUS,一开始我以为你是个巨魔,但现在,面对所有这些真正令人讨厌的巨魔和信徒,我认为你的评论是有道理的。

  323. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    进化论没有得到足够的证明,无法成为一个经过验证的科学理论。 例如,在给定时间框架和我们可以达成一致的其他数据的情况下,缺少一个证据,即所提出的机制的进化甚至在纯粹的数学上是可能的。 你没有提交任何数据,我没有拒绝看数据。 (我获得了数学博士学位,但后来从事信息技术工作。)

    数学博士。 你不知道哥德尔不完备定理吗?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorems

    逻辑本质上是不完整的。 观察和实验为进化提供了证据:而不是数理逻辑。 逻辑和宗教“证明”物种是固定的,地球是平的。

    我读到关于蹼足不能进化成翅膀的担忧,我贴了一张蝙蝠的照片,清楚地显示蝙蝠翅膀上的骨头是伸出的手指。 这不是证据吗? 还有成千上万张我可以发布的其他照片。 细菌的繁殖速度比高等动物快得多,通过显微镜,您可以看到几个月内发生的进化。 今天的证据是压倒性的,我不会浪费时间在这里发布更多。 我得到了补习的报酬。

    我不是创造论者,也不是 ID 的支持者。 到目前为止,我什至还没有读过任何关于 ID 的内容。 我根本不认为达尔文主义和新达尔文主义是经过验证的科学理论。

    你否认这一点,但通过混淆达尔文主义和进化论,你自己就是一个创造论者。 成为创造论者无需阅读任何东西:无知让一切变得更容易。

    也许这个 (骚扰) 在美国的一些圣经带州可能是这样

    我说的不是圣经带州,而是进化论没有争议的西海岸州。 与联邦政府和军队有联系的州外人员会这样做。 有一次他们把我误认为支持者并解释了策略。 他们希望通过以诺亚方舟为基础的新“美国”宗教取代基督教、犹太教和伊斯兰教来统一西方。然后他们将领导对中国的哈米吉多顿之战。 所以,当然,进化对他们来说是一种诅咒。

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

  324. @peterAUS

    差不多了

    或者有一个小农场。 几英亩的草地和一头母牛,你有全年的食物供应。 自然,你会有一口井,所以有一个独立的地下水供应,与大多数公共供水不同,它在很大程度上不会受到放射性沉降物的污染。 再加上一两英亩的林地来提供你需要的所有燃料,还有一个果园、几只鸡、一个菜园和一袋面粉,你的饮食会比大多数城市居民更好。

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  325. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    呵呵……照这样的思路,几把弹药充足的枪也不会有什么伤害。 当然,要有足够的熟练度来处理它们。 正确的态度也是如此。
    预备者世界?

    我觉得为不同的场景做好准备会更有意义。
    在物质匮乏和监视专制“前卫”状态的世界中,至少在精神、道德和智力上生存甚至成长。

    西方的大多数白种人都很难适应。
    来自东欧的白种人……没问题。 他们将从共产主义下的经验中汲取经验。

    恕我直言,这是所有这些的下一阶段。 我可能会在这种范式中度过我的最后几天。

    在那之后会发生什么,以及如何,好吧,我更愿意让那些活着的人看到它。

  326. Hu Mi Yu 说:

    今年的诺贝尔化学奖刚刚由三位科学家获得,他们的实验表明,在创造新酶方面,随机性比设计更有效。

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/revolution-based-evolution-honored-chemistry-nobel?utm_campaign=news_weekly_2018-10-05&et_rid=321283152&et_cid=2411859

    或者如果太长试试这个:

    https://tinyurl.com/y7htkgnb

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
    , @j2
  327. @Hu Mi Yu

    由于人类是自然界的一部分,人类导向的进化仍然是进化。 但精确的人类定向进化技术的发展标志着生命发展新阶段的开始,因为地球上越来越多的生物资源将是人类定向选择的产物。 这意味着进化速度大大加快,超人类和许多难以想象的奇怪新生物出现在不是亿万年,而是仅仅几百年甚至几十年的时间里。 关于进化的问题,这最终会让弗雷德闭嘴。

  328. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    我知道你希望目前的进化论是正确的,因为你或你的侄女受到了一些田纳西州的神创论者的恶劣对待,但它存在的问题比我目前提到的问题严重得多。 人们应该解释现在的时间、意识、生命的诞生、第一个细胞的诞生、相互作用的微调等等。 进化论解释得太少,因为它试图以我们看到的物理世界就是整个现实的假设来解释事物。 但很可能不是,当你试图解释这些其他事情时,进化论的基础就变得人为。 如果你想阅读我的意思,我写了一篇简短的文章:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/10/06/a-theory-of-creative-time-another-alternative-to-darwinism/

  329. Hu Mi Yu 说:

    进化论解释得太少,因为它试图以我们看到的物理世界就是整个现实的假设来解释事物。 人们应该解释现在的时间、意识、生命的诞生、第一个细胞的诞生、相互作用的微调等等。

    达尔文主义,赫伯特·斯宾塞的哲学,解释了一切。 进化只解释了我们今天看到的生物是如何从单细胞生物中产生的。 如果你想要一个关于一切的理论,看看其他地方。 科学没有。

    你正在寻找宗教,而不是科学。 你可以用任何你喜欢的方式来协调进化与你的宗教,但进化是一个事实。 就我而言,上帝制造了长笛。 进化是由流经它的随机噪声产生的纯音符。 如果你仔细聆听,你可以听到笛手的呼吸声。

    • 回复: @j2
    , @j2
  330. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    像你这样的人的问题是他们在学校和大学的基础课程中学到了一些东西,但还不够,所以他们的知识落后于科学的艺术状态大约100,然后这些人假装代表科学。 万物理论,统一理论,自 1980 年代以来就已经提出,并且仍在制定,它们是当前的科学,而您最喜欢的进化理论是 19 世纪的想法,让现代科学家感到尴尬。 是的,确实,科学试图回答深奥的问题,不仅是物种如何从单细胞生物进化而来的问题(进化论实际上没有回答),而且还有那些仍然在 19 世纪和不知道这些问题是研究出来的,所以这些人嘲笑现代研究。

    进化论者与人非常相似,他们声称所有的恒星和行星都在地球上运行,地球是独一无二的,它是宇宙中唯一有生命的地方,处于独特的位置。
    进化论者声称这个物理世界是唯一的世界,没有其他的世界,这是唯一的一个并且处于独特的位置,因为只有这个世界是真实的,所以这就是为什么生命通过随机机制从非生命发展到这里的原因不需要任何外部信息,因为没有外部,我们是现实的中心:只有这个世界。

    是的,进化论者正是过去宗教狂热分子的现代版本。

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  331. j2 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    证据不支持生命通过随机突变和自然选择从早期生命发展而来的理论。

    为了开发新的主要物种,基因必须发生很大变化。 一个大的改变需要很多中间步骤:
    1)如果表达了中间步骤,则声称每个中间步骤都是有用的并且是一个小的改进,这就是自然选择选择它的原因。 这种说法实际上是不可能的,因为所有中间步骤都不可能有用和改进。
    2)如果中间步骤没有表达(就像它们发生在假基因中),那么没有选择力作用于它们。 然后它们是随机游走,随机游走几乎不会产生有用的结果。 它可能与酶或病毒一起工作,因为它们有很多,但不能与许多导致物种间现象学差异的基因一起工作。

    因此,证据不支持随机突变。 来自化石和生物化学的证据支持生命是从早期生命发展而来的观点,但这一定是通过非随机突变和某种选择(例如瓶颈)而发生的,而不仅仅是自然选择。 如果是这样,那么在短时间内突变看起来是随机的,但在更长的时间内它们不是随机的。 如果选择过去导致给定的现在时间,这些突变必须导致现在时间,因此它们不能在很长一段时间内是随机的。

  332. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @j2

    像你这样的人的问题是他们在学校和大学的基础课程中学到了一些东西,但还不够,所以他们的知识落后于科学的艺术状态大约100,然后这些人假装代表科学。

    你需要学习一门大学水平的生物学基础课程。

    万物理论,统一理论,自 1980 年代以来就已经提出,并且仍在提出,它们是当前的科学,

    一切的理论都不是科学。 他们是宗教。

    而你最喜欢的进化论是 19 世纪的想法,让现代科学家感到尴尬。

    我最喜欢的进化论在 1950 年代稳定下来。 我第一次接触它是在 1960 年左右。几十年后,我在两所不同的大学学习生物学,该理论的先见之明令人惊叹。 一切预料之中的事,都被证明是真的。

    OTOH 自威廉·詹宁斯·布赖恩 (William Jennings Bryan) 时代以来,您所提倡的想法并没有改变。 神创论或 ID 是否预测了基因指纹识别、克隆和基因操作?

    我看过谈话要点清单。 你来这里只是为了推动一项事业; 你不明白你在写什么。

  333. @Rurik

    适者生存不是达尔文进化论。
    达尔文进化论是动物缓慢、渐进的变化。
    尼安德特人被更具侵略性的物种杀死这一事实与进化无关。
    就像狗杀死猫一样,进化也是如此。

  334. “进化的狂热者,就像基督徒一样,从一本神圣的书中建立他们的创世神话,......”
    它根本不像基督徒。
    基督徒的信仰基于至少有 5 位目击者记录的人类复活。
    马修、约翰、彼得、詹姆斯和裘德。

    谁见证了进化?

  335. Merlin 说:
    @BamBam Rubble

    你能给我举一个人类随机突变的例子,它是有益的,并增加了基因组中的信息量,创造了一个新的结构或活性位点? 这个加上自然选择被认为是驱动进化的原因,还是我们已经转向自组织原则?

    我们确实知道数以千计的有害突变。 这与进化相反。

    Behe 反驳了对不可简化的复杂性的反驳。 也许你没有听说过。

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