这是上一本关于进化论的专栏的更新版本，按照互联网标准，它的篇幅非常长，甚至令人发指，但我还是将其发布，因为偶尔会收到请求。 很少有人会读，这是可以理解的。 道歉。 魔鬼让我做到了。 我会收到无比愚蠢的电子邮件，说我是北卡罗来纳州处理蛇的原始基督教徒，三颗牙齿。 实际上，我确实相信所有人类都来自一个男人和一个女人（迪卡利翁和Pyrrha）。
“科学家是波兰科学哲学家路德维克·弗莱克（Ludwik Fleck）所谓的“思想集体”的一部分：一群人以相互理解的习语交换思想。 弗莱克建议，这个小组不可避免地会发展自己的思想，因为其中的每个人都在交流，思考和感受的方式上趋于一致。
这使得科学探究倾向于人类社会生活的永恒规则：尊重魅力，遵循多数意见，对偏差的惩罚以及对错误的强烈不满。 当然，这种趋势恰恰是发明了科学方法来纠正的趋势，从长远来看，它确实起到了很好的作用。 从长远来看，我们都死了，比我们如果没有按照不良建议节食的话，我们早就死了。”
当我开始思考进化时，我在上高中时。 那时，我只是系统地发现科学，并将它们视为自己所提供的东西，即理性的领域和对真理的无动于衷的关注。 我喜欢他们，这让他们很清楚。 你得到了真正的答案。 由于进化依赖于化学等科学，因此我认为它也是一门科学。
生命起源的问题使我感兴趣。 但是，我在生物学教科书中遇到的进化论解释似乎很弱。 他们跑到：“在原始海洋中，蒸发浓缩的溶解化合物溶解在岩石的孔中，形成了膜，生命开始了它的巨大旅程。” 不过，我没有理由对此表示怀疑。 如果不是真的，科学家将不会说是这样。
那些日子我读 “科学美国人” 和 “新科学家”，然后仍会以周到的语言用优质的英语写作。 我注意到，他们并不经常对生命的起源提出不同的推测。 人们对化学事故手段的信念一直是不变的，但是原始汤的性质发生了变化，以适应不同的解释尝试。
有一阵子，人们认为生命是在特定组成的海洋中的浅水中的黏土上产生的，后来在潮汐池中使用另一种化学溶液，然后在公海中使用另一种溶液。 这继续。 近来，地热通风口已被提供作为第一生命的家。 今天（24年2005月XNUMX日）在英国广播公司（BBC）网站上，我了解到生活在海底以下演化。 （“有证据表明生命是在深层沉积物中进化的，”英国卡迪夫大学的合著者约翰·帕克斯（John Parkes）告诉英国广播公司新闻网站。）
地面的频繁移动使我感到困扰。 如果我们知道生活是如何开始的，为什么我们有这么多的预期机制，却没有一个起作用？ 进化开始看起来像是寻找汤的理论。 在2015年的XNUMX年后，它仍然存在。
早期，我注意到关于进化的三件事，将其与其他科学（或几乎可以说与科学）区分开来。 首先，合理性被认为等同于证据。 当然，您所了解的越少，可能出现的事情就越多，因为要获取的事实更少。 进化论者一再认为，暗示某事可能如何发生等同于确定某事如何发生。 要求他们提供证据通常会引起烦恼，有时，如果坚持下去，还会产生敌意。
例如，请考虑以下观点：生命是由化学事故引起的。 我认为他们的意思是，他们无法想象可能还会发生什么。 （我也不能。因为无法想到一个好人而接受一个不好的解释吗？）因此，这种偶然性理论虽然有些合理，但没有通常的科学标准，例如可再现性或对数学可行性的严格证明，就可以接受。 。 换句话说，进化论者过于依附于他们的思想而无法质疑它们。
或注意别人确实有疑问，并且有道理。 他们为确定性的确定而疯狂地捍卫了地球海洋生物的进化。 然而在2005年XNUMX月 “科学美国人”，一篇文章认为生活可能已经在其他地方开始了，也许是在火星上，然后在陨石上到达了这里。 可能会有，也许有。 某个地方，其他地方，任何地方。 向前走入雾中。
因此，讨论通常依赖于含糊不清的断言，或者忽略了明显的问题。 据说八哥已经发展成为污垢的颜色，以至于鹰看不到它们被吃掉。 这是合理的，我怀疑这是事实。 但是从低地球轨道上可以看到瓜卡马俄斯岛和美冠鹦鹉非常艳丽。 这里有矛盾吗？ 不，进化论者说。 瓜卡马约斯（Guacamayos）艳丽，所以他们可以找到彼此交配。 总是有拍拍的解释。 但star鸟似乎很成功，尽管看不见。 如果您听到了鳄梨酱的尖叫声，您几乎不会怀疑另一个人会很容易找到它。 进化的热情者然后告诉我，鳄梨酱是他们食物链中的佼佼者，并且没有捕食者。 否则掠食者是色盲的。
不断下去。 在任何珊瑚礁上，水肺潜水员都可以看到（或看不到）章鱼等生物的惊人伪装，据说这种伪装可以防止它们被食用。 是的但是许多鱼颜色鲜艳。 有什么好处？
其次，进化似乎更像是一种形而上学或意识形态，而不是科学。 据我所知，科学给出了明确的答案。 进化涉及对模糊原理的强烈信念。 您展示了化学反应，但相信进化。 如果您曾经辩论过马克思主义者，或者是认真的自由派或保守派，或者是女权主义者或基督教徒，那么您会注意到，尽管它们非常聪明，灵通，但它们表现出令人发狂的回避性。 如果这是他们不想给的答案，您将永远不会得到直接的答案。 关键前提尚未牢固确立。 基本主张与可观察的现实不相关。 马克思主义者（或进化论者）总是假设尼古拉斯二世统治时期对经济状况的详细了解代替了能够回答诸如马克思主义为何从未奏效的简单问题的能力。 这是无关知识的谬论。 当然，仅考虑有利的证据并认真解释，几乎可以使任何事情令人信服。
第三，进化论者对基督教和神创论着迷，他们认为自己正处于致命的战斗中。 这是他们特有的。 请注意，天文学和地质学，甚至考古学等其他科学也受到世界创建于公元前4004年的观念的威胁。 天文学家对创世论的想法丝毫没有丝毫关注。 除进化论者外，没有人这样做。 我们正在处理相互竞争的宗教，即对起源和命运的总体解释。 因此，他们对怀疑主义的愤怒。
我发现告诉他们我不是神创论者毫无意义。 他们拒绝相信。 如果他们有，他们将不得不回答他们宁愿避免的问题。 像任何狂热分子一样，他们无法识别自己的狂热分子。 因此，他们不断地将怀疑论者归类为真理，科学，达尔文和进步的敌人（他们经常使用的单词）。
我曾在互联网上处理过诸如进化之类的问题的多个列表中，都写过关于该主题的文章，并与它的各种拥护者讨论了进化。 确实，这些人（几乎所有人都是）非常聪明，经常是常春藤联盟的教授，其中一些人的名字你会认出来。 他们不是进化的业余爱好者，也不是堪萨斯州的高中校长渴望证明自己的现代性。 我问了他们一些问题，例如我们是否真的知道原始海洋是什么，等等。 我想看看进化生物学的忠实拥护者将如何回应尴尬的问题。
这就像给山猫进行前列腺检查一样。 除了答案我什么都知道。 他们告诉我，我是一个曲柄，一遍又一遍地暗示我是神创论者，说我是科学的敌人（索取证据的人是科学的敌人）。 他们说我正在尝试取消现代生物学（如果您问生物学方面的问题，您想取消生物学）。 他们告诉我，我什么都不知道（这就是为什么我问问题），而我只是个记者（问题的有效性取决于问题的来源而不是内容）。
但是他们没有回答问题。 他们躲开了，躲开了，躲开了。 在新闻业工作了三十年后，我一看就知道躲避和躲避。 就像盘问敌对的证人一样。
这不是真正的信徒的行为，而是科学家的拥护者的行为。 我曾经以为科学是在问问题，而不是在捍卫您并不真正知道的事物。 我认为宗教是另一回事。 我想我错了。
关于通常使我对进化论或生物科学或任何科学“一无所知”的指控，我将指出，大多数事情可以通过适度的智力和强迫症来掌握。 大多数科学的明显困难更多在于禁止使用术语，而不是隐藏在其中的简单想法。 冒着令人厌烦的危险，我注意到，由于大学基础扎实且阅读能力强，我可以很熟悉地讲：
前期，中期，后期，末期。 Descemet的膜，睫状体，悬韧带，视网膜色素上皮（眼睛具有进化意义）。 肽垂体激素，加压素和催产素。 破骨细胞，成骨细胞。 肾单位，肾小球，亨利循环。 轴突，枝晶，钠钾外去极化，神经递质，受体部位。 粗糙且光滑的内质网，高尔基体，脂质双层，疏水性和亲水性尾巴，溶酶体，核糖体，表位，m-RNA，t-RNA，转录，翻译。 限制性内切酶，DNA聚合酶。 育种方程，选择差异，多重营养，上位性，遗传力窄。 嘌呤腺嘌呤，鸟嘌呤和嘧啶胞嘧啶和胸腺嘧啶（好吧，RNA中的尿嘧啶）。 密码子字母的简并性。 核苷酸，核苷，三磷酸腺苷，插入缺失，线粒体cr，单核苷酸多态性，香农信息与指定信息，聚合酶链反应，限制性片段长度多态性，电泳。 萤光素（和Luciferout？）萤光素酶ATP。 X染色体和线粒体DNA。 肽键-COOH与NH 2结合，水分子被挤出。 具有社会重要性的化合物，例如2、4、6-三硝基甲苯，甲苯是具有-CH3基团的苯，苯中的键共振，pH，水合氢离子含量的负对数。 左旋和右旋异构体。 烷烃，烯烃，炔烃，戈尔。 寒武纪，奥陶纪，志留纪，泥盆纪，石炭纪，二叠纪。 据称是过渡形式：如果有记忆，则是格陵兰东部泥盆纪沉积物的鱼鳞兽类； 始祖鸟，巴伐利亚1861年; 我想，腔棘鱼，Marjorie Latimer，大约在1937年。 还有我最喜欢的Piltdown Man 羊膜卵。 绍里斯人和鸟嘴兽的恐龙。 蜥脚类，假足类，co足类。 等等
本文的目的不是与进化论的热烈辩论。 这样做将毫无意义。 问题是人们为什么相信和不相信事物的内在思想之一。 知识上最大的分歧不是在相信一件事的人和相信另一件事的人之间，而是在那些有情感需求热切地相信某事的人和可以说“我不知道”的人之间。 前一组包括那些乏味的达尔文主义者和创造主义者，他们像对手足球队的球迷一样互相h亵。 每个胆怯的人都拒绝承认自己的学说不是绝对可靠的可能性的丝毫可能性。 在我看来，它们是最好的证据，表明我们不是从猴子那里衍生出来的，但是还没有上升到猴子身上。 愚蠢到一定程度是很难解决的。
“ Queer”：恰如其分的词，暗示着更多的世界 爱丽丝梦游仙境 而不是清脆，整洁，有序且有因果关系的物理世界。 这种范例认为存在就像一个巨大的填字游戏。 我们已经填充了某些部分，而其他部分则没有，但是从本质上来说，这个难题是可以解决的，知道一切只是时间问题。 这是非常乐观的。
今天的人类是一个浮肿和过度自信的物种。 我们相信，我们知道一切，或者很快就会知道。 我们有一种近乎全知的感觉，只有青少年才有。 因为我们没有智能手机，火星着陆器和PET扫描仪，并且我们不是都对DNA进行了明智的解释吗？ 如果不是神，我们至少是神灵。 如果您不相信这一点，请问我们。
并非总是如此。 一千年前，人类在地球上投下了一个小阴影，生活在一个黑暗而神秘的世界中。 几乎一无所知。 无数的众神在地上行走。 精神居住在神圣的小树林中。 闪电，月亮，星星是……什么？ 我们不知道。 这带来了谦卑。
我们现在认为，没有什么可以或可以超越我们的能力。 沉思的怀疑者可能会提出一些剩余的细节：我们不知道我们来自哪里，为什么在这里，“这里”在哪里，我们要去哪里（如果有的话）或我们应该做什么。 这些是小问题。 我们只有在凌晨三点醒来时才想到它们，并记住我们不是永久的。 我们在开玩笑。
当人们习惯于毫无意义的事物时，他们似乎开始变得如此。 尽管当我们啄着平板电脑并听取关于自然界征服的低调粗鲁的表演时，我们不再注意到它了，但我们仍然生活在一个奇怪而莫名其妙的宇宙中，一个似乎无休止的空虚，散布着氢火的火花。 这是邪恶的神秘。 确实，天地上还有更多的东西。
我们没有我们想象的那么明智。 我们比其他任何人都聪明。 我重申弗雷德的原则：在仓鼠中，最聪明的还是仓鼠。
进化论不仅仅与生物进化有关。 它是试图解释一切（除了无法解释的事物，它会忽略的事物）的统一理论的一部分。 它的运行方式如下：首先是“大爆炸”。 亚原子粒子向各个方向飞行，聚集成原子，分子和恒星。 行星形成，然后是海洋，然后由于化学疏忽而产生了生命。 进化产生了三叶虫，恐龙，哺乳动物和我们。 在流行版本中，尽管不是科学版本，但进化会产生不断的改进。
这不是特别合理。 就像有人说的那样，人们认为巨大的氢云最终将变成曼哈顿，这是进化论的重要依据。 但是，就像宗教一样，它对起源-大爆炸和命运-提供了一个总体的解释，我们越来越好了，并给了我们一种了解世界的感觉。
因此，该理论是对确定性需求的一种表达。 请注意，在1925年的“范围猴子试验”中，基督教原教旨主义者试图取缔达尔文，今天，进化论者呼吁法院取缔在学校中提及创造的法律。 这是不合理的。 谁能相信，在高中描述创造力会阻止学生学习生物化学，并将他们变成烧书的智力腰缠腰带的人吗？
在《进化论》中，除了物理学以外，什么都没有。 大爆炸是物理，化学是原子相互作用的物理，生物化学是化学的子集，因此也是物理。 细胞中发生的一切都是物理学（包括生物化学）。 从运动到思想，在生物体内发生的一切都是物理。 变异是身体事件。 DNA的行为遵循物理定律。
请注意，生物进化始终被视为不可分割的实体，但实际上它由逻辑上可分离的几个不同的组成部分组成。 首先，生命是在古代海洋中偶然发生的（高度不稳定，当然没有得到证实）。 其次，发生了这种演变（可以在极限内显示）。 第三，自然选择推动了进化（在某些情况下是可证明的，在许多情况下似乎是合理的，而在另一些情况下则不太可能）。 第四，随机突变会推动自然选择（非常不稳定，但对进化论至关重要）。 第五，没有别的驱动力。
坚持认为，在数十亿年（更准确地说，约XNUMX亿）的生命必须从所有的时间中恢复过来之前，需要解决的一个问题。 这一点还不清楚。 对于复杂事件的可能性问题，时间可能意味着很少。 考虑一下詹姆斯·吉恩斯（James Jeans）著名的断言（通常与进化有关），即猴子在键盘上随机打字最终会在大英博物馆中写下所有书籍。 这听起来似乎合理，并且从纯粹的数学意义上讲是正确的。 几率是多少？
考虑一本大小为200,000个单词的大小适中的书，按报纸的平均水平，将包含大约一百万个字母。 为了使猴子轻松，我们将忽略大写和标点符号，让他使用26个字母的字母。 在给定的一百万个字母字符串中获取这本书的前景如何？
正确获得第一个字母的机会是获得第二个字母的机会的1/26倍，以此类推，以此类推，使整个书获得了1/26的机会，依此类推。1,000,000。 由于26等于10日志26，（日志26约为1.41），获得整本书的几率是十分之一日志26 x 1000,000 约101,400,000。 像这样的无辜数字非常难处理。 例如，十亿只猴子（比 I想要），每秒输入10亿个字符，这是宇宙估计年龄的XNUMX亿倍（XNUMX18 秒），获得这本书的机会基本上为零。
为了给我们的猴子一个战斗的机会，让我们问问他是否会得到一本书的书名，例如 通过自然选择或保护生命中的有利种族来保护物种起源 , Microsoft Word告诉我其中包含119个字符。 猴子在给定的119字符串中获得标题的机会是十分之一119 xx 1.41或10168因此，在整个宇宙生命中，每秒十亿个字符的十亿个猴子实际上是零。
偶然形成活着的爬行者的机会是否也存在类似的问题？ 我们不知道，特别是因为进化论者无法告诉我们“第一动物”是什么。 但是，他们有责任首先告诉我们形成什么复杂性的原因，其次告诉我们为什么不是天文数字就表明了这种复杂性。 要指出的是，在谈到复杂但尚未说明的事件的可能性时，调用较长的时间几乎没有什么意义。
（1）据说生命是由于早期海域的化学疏忽而开始的。 我想知道我们真的知道那些早期的海洋是什么吗？ 知道，而不是怀疑，希望，理论化，神圣，推测或真的，真的希望。 请记住，化学反应主要取决于摩尔数，pH，温度，中间体的半衰期等。
（3）是否在实验室中复制了活细胞，甚至是代谢繁殖分子的产生？ 不，它没有。 进化论者在这里会说：“但是，弗雷德，你怎么能在实验室中重复花费数百万年，数十亿亿加仑的海水呢？” 您不能，但是我是否可以基于无法证明的理由相信它的发生？
（4）在任何汤料下，是否数学上可能会形成细胞？ 不，它不能，也不能。 （至少不是没有假设的情况。）
6）接下来，我想知道没有答案是要提出一个观点：我们假设“第一小动物”越复杂，它偶然形成的可能性就越小。 复杂程度越低，就越难解释为什么实验室中未设计出这种Critter。 随着时间的流逝，困难越来越大。
如前所述，一种假设是，生命从碳质球粒陨石的外层空间突然涌入，或者开始于火星（在火星着陆的一排未曾发现的明显位置），然后漂流到了地球。 就是说，生活始于显然没有生命的地方。 进化思维的灵活性非常值得赞赏。
这里值得一提：媒体经常兴奋地报道说，在陨石，彗星，星际空间或通过电火花的化学瓶中都发现了“有机化合物”。 不幸的“有机”这个名字暗示了生物的起源，或者很快就会变成生物的可能性。 实际上，“有机化学”大致是碳链的化学。 没有任何生活起源或生活意图的暗示。 DDT和2,4,6-三硝基甲苯（TNT）一样，是一种有机化合物。
如果您从意识形态战士的角度看待进化论，他认为自己正在从北卡罗来纳州的原始基督教徒的爪子中拯救世界，那么就会遇到困难。 其中最主要的是事物的绝对复杂性。 活生物体太复杂，以至于偶然发生。 在我看来，这对任何具有开放思想的人来说都是显而易见的，尽管这是无法证明的。
在生活世界的每个地方，都可以看到错综复杂的事物被错综复杂的事物包裹着。 在某些时候，理智的人不得不说：“这不只是发生了。 发生了我不理解的事情。” 但是进化论者不能说有什么他不懂的，只有有些东西他还不懂。
阅读一本胚胎学教科书。 您从一个几乎看不见的合子开始，据我们所知，合子仅受化学定律的引导，会与周围的化学物质毫无反应地反应，在九个月的时间内构建出一种令人难以理解的复杂事物，我们称之为“婴儿”。 细胞在这里迁移，迁移到那里，自我修饰或被修饰以形成众多的器官，每个器官都非常复杂，所有这些化学过程都可以在自动驾驶仪上完美无瑕地发生。 我们已经习惯了这一点，因此认为这是有道理的。 通常看来总是合理的。 我不这么认为。 这根本不可能，是对墨菲定律的狂野正面攻击。
因此，婴儿不存在。 示范股。 除非涉及其他事情。 我不知道。
复杂就复杂。 在几乎看不见的细胞中，您会发现内质网，高尔基体，核糖体，核和信使，并转移RNA，溶酶体，无数酶，转录和翻译DNA的复杂机制，本身就是一个复杂而又神秘的信息库。 不知何故，这几乎什么都没收。 众所周知，这种事情的发生实在令人难以置信。 当人们几乎对细胞生物学的复杂性一无所知时，人们就开始相信它了。此后，到那时为止，这是一本神圣的著作，这一点就毋庸置疑了。 而且不能。
前述仅仅是复杂性的开始。 毫不费力地形成了许多器官 在子宫内 就像细胞本身一样令人费解。 考虑一下眼睛的一部分（对它们的简化描述）：巩膜，脉络膜和视网膜三层的球体。 角膜分为六层，上皮，鲍曼膜，固有层，杜阿层，Descemet膜，内皮。 视网膜十层。 晶状体由前囊和后囊组成，内含蛋白质性粘膜。 晶状体由睫状体内的细悬吊韧带固定，睫状体是一个肌肉性的甜甜圈，可以改变晶状体的形状从而聚焦。 径向和圆周纤维的虹膜被对立的交感神经系统和副交感神经系统竞争性地激活。 泵使房水循环。 不断地。 同样，对于所有其他器官而言，这持续了七十年之久，一旦受损，它们就会自我修复。
在每个级别，复杂性都在增加。 视网膜生化功能的以下简化描述来自 达尔文的黑匣子：进化的生化挑战 迈克尔·贝赫（Michael Behe）着。 我推荐的书可供精明的门外汉取用，是为他们而写的。 作者提供了以下Technoglop，以使您了解视觉所涉及的内容。 明智的读者会跳过大部分内容。
当光首先入射到视网膜时，光子与称为11-顺-视网膜的分子相互作用，该分子在皮秒内重新排列成跨视网膜。 （皮秒大约是光穿过一根人类头发的整个宽度所花费的时间。）视网膜分子形状的变化迫使视网膜视蛋白紧紧结合的蛋白视紫红质的形状发生变化。 蛋白质的变形会改变其行为。 这种蛋白质现在被称为金属视紫红质II，会黏附在另一种称为转导蛋白的蛋白质上。 转导蛋白进入金属视紫红质II之前，它已经紧密结合了一个称为GDP的小分子。 但是，当转导蛋白与间质视紫红质II相互作用时，GDP下降，称为GTP的分子会与转导蛋白结合。 （GTP与GDP密切相关，但与GDP严重不同。）
现在，GTP转导蛋白-去甲视紫红质II与位于细胞内膜上的称为磷酸二酯酶的蛋白质结合。 当与二磷酸视紫红质II及其伴随物连接时，磷酸二酯酶具有“切割”称为cGMP分子（GDP和GTP的化学相对分子）的化学能力。 最初，细胞中有很多cGMP分子，但是磷酸二酯酶会降低其浓度，就像拉出的塞子会降低浴缸中的水位一样。 结合cGMP的另一种膜蛋白称为离子通道。 它充当调节细胞中钠离子数量的门户。 通常，离子通道允许钠离子流入细胞，而另一种蛋白质则主动将其再次泵出。 离子通道和泵的双重作用将池中钠离子的水平保持在狭窄的范围内。 当由于磷酸二酯酶的切割而使cGMP的量减少时，离子通道关闭，导致带正电的钠离子的细胞浓度降低。 这会导致整个细胞膜上电荷的不平衡，最终导致电流沿着视神经向下传递到大脑。 当被大脑解释时，结果就是视觉。 如果上述反应是唯一在细胞中发生的反应，则11-顺-视网膜，cGMP和钠离子的供应将很快耗尽。 必须关闭已经打开的蛋白质并将细胞恢复到原始状态。 有几种机制可以做到这一点。 首先，在黑暗中，离子通道（除了钠离子）还让钙离子进入细胞。 钙被另一种蛋白质泵出，从而保持恒定的钙浓度。 当cGMP水平下降时，关闭离子通道，钙离子浓度也会降低。 磷酸二酯酶会破坏cGMP，但在较低的钙浓度下会减慢速度。 第二，当钙水平开始下降时，一种叫做鸟苷酸环化酶的蛋白质开始重新合成cGMP。 第三，尽管所有这些都在进行中，但视紫红质II仍被称为视紫红质激酶的酶化学修饰。 然后，经过修饰的视紫红质与称为视紫红质的蛋白结合，从而阻止视紫红质激活更多的转导蛋白。 因此，该单元格包含限制单个光子启动的放大信号的机制。 跨视网膜最终会从视紫红质上脱落下来，必须将其重新转化为11-顺式视网膜，并再次与视紫红质结合，以返回到另一个视觉循环的起点。 为此，首先通过酶将反式视网膜化学修饰为反式视黄醇（一种含有两个以上氢原子的形式）。 然后第二种酶将分子转化为11-顺式视黄醇。 最后，第三种酶除去先前添加的氢原子以形成11-顺-视网膜，一个循环完成。
我也许可以想象一架自行组装的空中客车380。 我无法想象上述事情会不断演变。 或完美地工作超过一毫秒。
如果在亚马逊盆地一个未开发的区域中，您在独木舟旁发现了一个草屋，您可能不知道是谁造出来的，但您认为一定有人拥有。 这是智能设计的理论。 当您在自然界中发现难以置信的复杂性但仍然可以完美工作时，就可以怀疑它们是由某人或某物设计的，甚至是由某人或某些东西支撑的。 我不知道是谁，什么，为什么。
同样神秘的是，无论生物系统是如何形成的，生物系统如何运作，我想说这几乎是不可能的。 实际上，可以用化学和物理的方式从机械上解释人体每个细节的运作，这就是实验得出的结果。 在实验室中，您可以证明，或似乎证明，酶A与酶B结合，激活了酶C，并允许酶D做酶D所做的任何事情。 （您可以证明，庞大的联邦计划在细节上有意义。但这在实践中行得通吗？）
但是要相信180磅无限复杂的相互作用的化学反应（例如，我）可以持续XNUMX年而不会完全崩溃，那么就需要超越宗教信仰最荒诞想象的信仰力量。 整体比其各个部分的总和更不可能。 正在发生我们不了解的事情。
考虑一个平面几何体。 他只处理有限范围的平面，直线，点和角度，仅此而已。 这些产生出优雅的数学和有用的结果。 他无法处理体积，动量或后盖方，因为这些不能源自他领域的元素。 它们超出了他的主题范围。
科学的领域是物理，它的元素是空间，时间，物质和能量，无论如何被连用。 科学中的一切最终都归结为物理学。 进化是生物化学系统与其物理环境随时间相互作用的物理学，因此也是物理学的一个子集。 在进化中，没有任何事情不会源自和遵循物理定律。
正如不能从平面几何中衍生出或不能用棒球几何来解释棒球一样，该几何不包含物质，能量，时间或三个维度的空间，思想，意识，道德，意志或崇高之类的事物也不能通过以下方式来解释：物理。 扼杀婆婆的欲望并没有脱离运动方程式。 当进化论者试图用物理学来解释诸如利他主义之类的行为时（尽管大多数人不知道这是他们在做什么），他们就像一个平面几何学家，试图用直线和角度来解释一个芝士汉堡。飞机。 不能做科学（尽管不是所有科学家）的麻烦恰恰是这样，他们试图在物理学领域内解释其职权范围之外的事物。
当科学试图解释解释器时，这就是特别困难。 考虑一下大脑，我们被告知，它只是一个电化学机器。 我们被告知，大脑中发生的所有事情都遵循化学和物理定律。
似乎确实是这种情况。 例如，神经递质在整个突触间隙中扩散：纯化学和物理。 它们与另一端的受体结合：纯化学和物理。 诸如乙酰胆碱酯酶之类的酶可以清除间隙中的残留物：纯净的化学和物理性质。 产生的神经冲动会在远端纤维去极化时顺着远侧纤维顺滑而下，钠离子进入钾离子通道：纯粹的化学和物理过程。 它与1901年打字机一样机械。
这意味着大脑无法做出选择，因此我们也无法做出选择。 物理系统无法选择要做什么。 从华盛顿纪念碑的顶部落下的保龄球无法决定掉落，还是侧身而不是掉下来，也无法选择掉落的速度或距离。 同样，物理系统的终点由启动条件确定。 由于立体化学和电荷，神经递质分子不可避免地与受体结合。 它不能绑定。
随之而来的是，我们不能选择一个动作而不是另一个动作。 我们的思想是由大脑的物理化学状态决定的。 我们思考我们的想法，因为在物理上不可能想到其他任何事情。 因此，我们根本无法思考。 QED。 告诉我为什么这不是事实。
悖论是域膨胀的结果。 笛卡尔曾说过一句著名的话：“ Cogito ergo sum”。 安布罗斯·比尔斯（Ambrose Bierce）不太出名，但更有洞察力地说道：“ Cogito cogito，ergo cogito sum。 Cogito。”
多数人认为，“适合度”表示“适合某个目的”，适者生存意味着比那些愚蠢，虚弱和缓慢的人更聪明，更强壮，更快地生存并产生更多的后代。 它不是。 对这类事物的研究被称为种群遗传学，正如其一位教授所说，“在种群遗传学中，适应性意味着成功繁殖的速率，没有别的。” 也就是说，健身并不能促进生存，但是 is 生存。 圆度是众所周知的：它们为什么生存？ 因为它们很合适。 您怎么知道它们合适？ 因为他们生存了。
进化论的一个主要方面是，进化可以最大限度地增加后代的数量，从而传递成功的基因。 这是有道理的，但就我们而言，这与观察相反（但是，为什么让事实破坏一个完美的理论呢？）发达国家的人口实际上正在下降，而这些国家都可以轻易地为更多的人提供支持。 例如，日本，西班牙，意大利，德国和俄罗斯。 在墨西哥，随着生活水平的提高，出生率急剧下降。 一个人如何通过不遗传而遗传自己的基因，这是人口遗传学的一个谜。
同时，黑人非洲（智商为60的未婚母亲的文明等同物）的人口迅速增长。 这就是说，在发达国家，个人的繁殖与智力，健康，财富和教育等有利条件成反比。 如前所述，在国家之间也存在类似的现象。
当指出这一点时，进化论者下摆和摆出姿势（或者我应该说下摆和她？），有时会说进化论不再适用于人类（尽管他们同时坚持认为进化论是持续不断的和迅速的），然后常常将人口下降归咎于避孕药，就好像是外部力量一样，例如干旱或新的掠食者。 但是说避孕会导致人口下降，就像说长矛会导致狩猎一样。 人们想吃东西，所以发明了长矛。 他们不想生孩子，所以他们发明了避孕方法。 现在，不传基因几乎是一件令人着迷的事情。
另一个特点是人口利他主义。 人口下降的国家有意进口劣等但遗传数量较多的遗传群体。 例如，瑞典进口非洲黑人。 在美国，白人人口为大量遗传上完全不同的黑人提供食物和衣服，并且实际上正在使他们成长。 达尔文式的优势难以捉摸。
进化论者坚持认为，人类进化今天仍在继续快速发展。 就选择育种而言，进化被定义为表型的改变，这没有什么不合逻辑的。 在某些情况下，可以证明它发生了。
考虑一下例如认知分层，其中非常聪明的人倾向于去常春藤大学读书，互相结婚，并养育聪明的孩子。 孩子们倾向于趋向于中庸，但随着他们的交配，中庸之道将会上升。 这样就产生了一个非常独特的亚群。
尽管肯定会发生这样的事情，但进化论者将特质对进化变化的偶然归因带来了问题。 首先是“选择性压力”通常无法测量，也无法与其声称的结果相关联。 性状通常归因于尚未证明无法通过选择性压力作用的基因，而选择性压力无法量化以产生与压力不相关的结果。 第二点是，结果似乎常常与看似明显的选择优势成反比。
通常看来，进化的动力更多地是由选择性压力驱动的，而不是由选择性压力驱动的。 缺席 选择压力。 在现代医学出现之前，遗传天赋较低的人（对疾病的抵抗力低或患有遗传病，例如糖尿病，严重的发育迟滞等）倾向于在繁殖前死亡。 这种选择性压力使这些疾病在人口中处于较低水平。 今天，有缺陷的人可以活到生育年龄，有孩子，因此迅速增加了这些疾病在人群中的流行。
一个奇怪的事实是，几乎没有明显价值的特征蓬勃发展，而那些看似重要的特征却没有。 考虑上棘褶皱，这使日本人和中国人““目结舌”。 我已经阅读过的进化论者断言，褶皱可以节省能量或保护眼睛免受冰风的侵害，从而进一步提高了生存能力。 从特征上讲，他们没有引用任何研究来证明这种折叠可以做以下两种事情：在进化中，似真性可以代替证据。 褶皱在人群中已变得普遍，这表明必须有强大的选择压力。
但是有什么压力？ 我们真的相信折痕为眼睛提供了足够的保护（如果提供了保护），从而导致其拥有的孩子比其他孩子多吗？ 折叠维京人会失明吗？ 进化噪声级在哪里？ 选择优势在什么时候如此微小（以至于没有区别）？
这使我们提出了一个莫名其妙的问题。 当具有极高的智力，强大的身体才能，惊人的视力等特质变得不常见时，为什么只有极少或没有繁殖价值的特质（即倍数）变得普遍？ 所有这些基因都已经存在于种群中，不需要突变。
如果今天人类进化以进化论者所说的（并且确实如此）迅速发展，那么选择压力就必须相当大。 有道理，要达到什么目的需要承受什么压力？ 认知分层（智商为130或更高的人的自我选择）具有资格，并可能导致边缘模糊但截然不同的亚群。
然而，现在看来压力似乎很小。 在现代的人口中，几乎没有人死于婴儿期，几乎每个人都结婚，几乎每个人都有相同数量的孩子，后代的数量不是由生与死的选择决定的。 足球队长获得舞会皇后，但书呆子班级获得书呆子，并可以有尽可能多的孩子。 几乎每个人都已超过生育年龄，因此淘汰速度不大，因为狼吃掉了慢食。 基因病患者可以存活，并可以通过药物繁殖。 因此，很难想象达尔文式的选择以极大的残酷性发生。
自第五世纪雅典以来的2500年中，我看不出有任何微小变化的证据。 Phidias和Praxiteles的雕像以及后来的罗马复制品向人们展示了与我们完全一样的人。 不可能对那些已死的人进行智商测试，但是柏拉图和阿基米德似乎很像当今最好的头脑，而色诺芬之类的作品在复杂性，清晰度和心智上与优秀的现代作家是无法区分的。 没有任何迹象表明远古人比我们更没有运动，好战或敏捷，或者他们的感觉没有那么敏锐。 2500年的快速发展似乎产生了零净值。
很难想象一个复杂的系统， 一旦存在， 可以在选择压力的影响下在一定范围内发展。 任何犬种都可以证明这一点。 或想想从Eohippus到Clydesdale的道路。 困难在于首先要了解系统是如何产生的。
考虑一下 塔兰图拉毒鹰，一种巨大的黄蜂，开始生活时是一个被麻痹，埋没的狼蛛的卵，它的母亲将卵放在那里。 这看起来似乎很不平常，但是并没有考虑到味道。 鸡蛋孵化。 幼虫以蜘蛛为食，以某种方式知道如何避开重要器官，以使怪物存活和新鲜。 它化脓了，然后，一个新的成年人，挖出了自己的洞穴。
它飞走了。 从来没有见过另一只黄蜂，或者其他任何东西，它找到了，并且知道如何交配。 （如果考虑到它，交配是一个比高中生看来更为复杂的过程。一些昆虫在飞行时交配，这增加了技巧。考虑到飞行员和空中小姐。）它从未见过狼蛛，所以知道如何找到一个，知道它需要攻击它，确切地知道如何st它，知道它必须将其拖到洞穴中，知道它必须挖掘，知道如何在狼蛛上产卵以及如何把它埋起来。
现在，其中一些可能被认为是达尔文所要求的循序渐进的演变（强调“想象的”，在进化上就足够了）。 只需要足够的时间。 在足够的时间内，任何期望的事情都会发生。 在数百万年的时间里，数以亿计的鸡蛋沉积在不幸的狼蛛中，其中一些幼虫吞噬了蜘蛛的重要器官，因此死于一只腐烂的蜘蛛中，没有传递其基因。 其他人化p，但试图通过向下或向侧面走去挖掘，从而死去而不传承其基因。 只有那些没有吃掉重要部分的突变和这种上升方式的突变才得以幸存，因此它们的基因才变得普遍。 我们被告知。
机器人蝇是一种蹲下的，丑陋的，多毛的蝇（无论如何，一种形式）会抓到一只蚊子，在正确放置后将卵产在所述蚊子上，并用一种胶水粘上它们。 它释放蚊子。 当小的羽毛状注射器落在例如人身上时，卵子掉落，孵化并钻入宿主。 这些使它们内部有些摇摆不定的令人讨厌的凸起结块。 以后幼虫退出，倒在地上，化up。
这是如何演变的？ 蚊子捕获基因是否作为随机突变发生（假设单个突变可能导致这种复杂行为）？ 它必须是一个吸引蚊子，但不要削弱它的基因。 对于一个突变，这真是很多精确的行为。 在这一点上，机器人蝇会有一只蚊子，但不知道该怎么办。 它需要同时具有蚊子上的粘蛋突变。 这似乎需要另一个相当雄心勃勃的基因。
在不产卵的情况下捕捉蚊子，或在此过程中压扁蚊子，或在空中将卵产下而不被蚊子捉住，这似乎是一个失败的主张。 如果没有其他突变，这些非常不幸的突变都不会有用。 您如何逐步地发展出这种精心制作的舞蹈？
生活是不可能的，但有些则更多。 考虑一下大脑。 据称，更大的大脑允许更复杂的行为。 在笔记本电脑文明中，我们将其称为“处理能力”。 但是要谨慎考虑大黄蜂。 它们具有非常复杂的行为，但几乎没有大脑或其他神经组织。 然而，它们的大脑却控制着六个多关节的腿（任何机器人工程师都会告诉你这是一个大问题），并且让它们精确地飞行也是一个非常困难的问题。 他们知道如何咀嚼木纤维制成糊状物，并且知道如何构造复杂的巢穴。 他们知道如何以及何时交配，这不是一个简单的过程。 同一条几乎不存在的神经系统会运作各种感觉并解释所产生的数据，这也不容易。 他们找到食物，告知其他人食物的位置，并毫不费力地长途航行。
然而，与以上的法老王蚂蚁相比，黄蜂是个尖尖的知识分子，而那些超级微小的野餐令人讨厌，其中有几只适合大黄蜂的视线。 他们也有复杂的社会组织等等，几乎没有神经元。 通常，社交昆虫的行为可能比鲸鱼的行为更为复杂。 这是无法解释的，或者至少是无法解释的。
直线进化是有道理的，例如，Eohippus逐渐变大直到到达Clydesdale为止，这是合理的，因为每个干预步骤都是可行的动物。 达尔文本人指出了这一点。 实际上，这只是选择性育种。 然而，许多进化的转变似乎需要无法生存的中间阶段。 昆虫的变态也许是最令人困惑的例子。
考虑。 有两个周期的虫子会产卵，孵化成成年的成年细小复制品，然后会生长，产卵并重复这一周期。 四个周期的虫子穿过卵，幼虫，，成虫。 问题：从两个周期发展到四个周期需要哪些可行的步骤？ 还是从任何事情到四个周期？
两轮车的卵必须进化为毛毛虫，它们的结构和成虫都与成虫大不相同。 再见腿，几丁质外骨骼； 头部，胸部和腹部不断。 无论为此目的第一个突变，所产生的新孵化的突变体都必须是可行的—能够生存和繁殖，直到发生下一个突变。
我们从两个周期的bug开始，为了方便起见，我们将其称为蟑螂，该蟑螂将努力演变为一个bug，为了方便起见，我们将其假设为一只蝴蝶。 这只蟑螂具有昆虫的头部，胸部和腹部的标准身体计划，以及通常的几丁质外骨骼。 从慈善的精神出发，我们认为这是一条飞翔的蟑螂，它可以带领人们迈向蝴蝶式发展的第一步。
为了达到这一崇高的目的，我们的蟑螂首先必须进化为毛毛虫，即幼虫。 很难看到这种情况是怎么发生的，或者为什么发生。 要成为毛毛虫，我们的蟑螂将不得不失去关节的腿，外骨骼和身体计划。 由于甚至没有最有希望的进化论者都不能将如此广泛的变化归因于一个突变，因此转化必须通过涉及至少几个甚至可能很多突变的步骤进行。 失去外骨骼会使它失去装甲，无法行走，这不是一个明显的选择性优势。 还是我们相信头部，胸部和腹部首先在神秘的选择性压力下由一连串的偶然突变介导而融合，然后失去了外骨骼并变成了诱饵？
但是，如果这些事情发生了，它们将导致毛毛虫的自立种族，这是一个新物种，必须能够繁殖。 然后，出于对我而言神秘的原因，这些人将不得不决定化up并变成蝴蝶。 而且蝴蝶必须产下变成毛毛虫的卵。
这可能无法正常工作。 从毛毛虫到蝴蝶的变态非常复杂，如果您第一次没弄对它，那就是窗帘。 这将取决于必须同时出现的许多步骤。 首先，我们的毛毛虫将不得不利用它的喷丝头（具有神秘的来历，但没关系）制造一个茧，由于它尚未进化出变态，它将继续死亡。 毛毛虫为什么会考虑这样做，目前尚不清楚。 为了成功地变成蝴蝶，需要生化机制将糊状，无腿，无翅，头胸无腹的蠕虫转变成完全不同的生物。 蝴蝶的不可能的复杂遗传图谱从何而来？
请注意，这些错误所带来的问题不仅仅是在一个缓慢的下午令人沉思。 进化论可以解释它们，否则该理论将失败。 这个问题通常被称为不可简化的复杂性，要求同时出现许多本身没有价值或实际上有害的突变，以产生给定的结果。
不可简化的复杂性问题在生物中无处不在。 一个人可能会列出他们成千上万的人。 考虑一下我们的大黄蜂的刺痛机制。 它由一个制造毒液的生化工厂组成（为什么会进化？）； 一个囊袋，直到需要为止； 将毒药喷入毒刺的肌肉； 毒刺，长而细的管子； 并用肌肉将毒刺逼入受害者（其他肌肉将毒刺缩回，否则只能刺痛一次，事实并非如此）。 除去其中任何一个，什么都没有发生。 除非还存在其他所有参数，否则这些参数均无任何价值。 这些观察不仅是一个缓慢的下午的哲学沉思。 如果进化论不能解释不可简化的复杂性，那么达尔文主义理论就失败了。
进化论者坚持认为不存在不可简化的复杂性。 如果这是真的，那么原则上任何生物系统都可以逐步简化回到原始海域的起源，而不会产生无法生存的中间阶段。 实际上，即使只有一个单元，复杂性也将使这成为不可能。 但是考虑蛋白质合成。 氨基酸的编码系统既简单又容易理解。
新蛋白质中的每个氨基酸均由由三个核碱基组成的密码子编码。 有四个核苷酸，三个密码子允许六十四个三连体，足以编码二十个氨基酸，一些控制密码子和冗余。 如何在不使系统失效的情况下简化该系统？ 通过将每个密码子的核苷酸数目从三个减少到两个？ 这样就只能编码XNUMX个氨基酸，而不是XNUMX个氨基酸，而没有STOP或STARTs，不足以维持生命。 如果魔术确实支撑了生命，那怎么可能 这 简化吗？ 当前的系统似乎是一个清晰而明确的案例，它说明了无法简化的复杂性，无法简化。
通常没有良好的进化解释的性状就出现了。 这里的进化论者有两个逃生途径，（1）能量守恒，（2）性选择。 例如，如果有人指出人类很虚弱，并且如果像黑猩猩一样坚强，那么人类将更容易存活，其回应是，拥有更大的肌肉将需要更高的卡路里摄入量来维持它们，如果存在，则会导致饥饿。干旱。 性选择：如果孔雀的尾巴非常引人注目，会吸引食肉动物，则原因是所有女孩都喜欢一条好的尾巴，所以这个男孩留下了更多的孩子。 让我们看看这些概念。
节约能源：人类在自然界中尤为突出，因为身体虚弱无力，嗅觉和听觉差。 为什么？ 进化论者有多个故事。 一个是因为人类直立行走，他们可以在开阔的视野上看得更远，因此可以用视觉代替其他不必要的感觉。
就像在进化论中一样，这无关紧要，这是没有意义的。 显然，能够在夜间通过嗅觉检测到接近的掠食者将是一个巨大的优势。 狮子是泥土和枯死植物的颜色，可以同时利用两者。 具有良好视力的马和与人类水平相近的眼睛具有极佳的嗅觉。 这个故事甚至不符合模糊的合理性的通常进化标准。
考虑。 大鼠具有比人类更好的嗅觉，它们可以用来寻找食物。 老鼠的大脑 重1350克，人类大约1350克。让我们假设老鼠的整个大脑都专用于闻，当然不是。 如果将老鼠的大脑全部添加到人体，则其大小将从1352克增加到2克，增加1350/15或.15％。由于大脑使用了人类能量预算的2％，因此总能量需求为1350 / 100 X 15 X .02或.2％。 不是02％，而是.XNUMX％。 这种微小的增加可能无法抵消急性嗅觉的优势。 相同的推理适用于其他感官，例如听力。 当然，人们已经有了嗅觉区域。 他们只是做不了什么。
性选择：另一种解释没有意义的事物的方法是“性选择”。 许多事情似乎不利于生存，但仍然存在于自然界中：巨大的鹿角在战斗中不可用，孔雀尾巴的华丽尾巴，人的大乳房等等。 女人为什么乳房明显？ 它们不需要产生足够的牛奶，并且它们在跑步中是严重的身体缺陷。 为什么它们继续存在？
性选择的问题是双重的。 首先，性选择需要对大乳房预先存在吸引力。 否则，在一个洞穴社会中，当第一个通过突变的女人和大个女人一起出现时，我们会听到一个洞穴男人对另一个男人说： 错和萨莉在一起？” “打败，我，拉尔夫。 也许是癌症。” 但是，当没有大乳房可供选择时，为什么会偏爱大乳房呢？
第二个问题是，如果性别选择有利于大乳房，那么到现在为止，大多数女性都会拥有大乳房，显然情况并非如此。 （再来比较一下2500年前的希腊雕像。它们看起来像我们。）当然，当性别选择的特征在人群中普及后，它将不再具有优势。 据推测，由于乳房是身体上的不利因素，因此，拥有较小乳房的妇女将更容易存活，而较小的蹄则将是一个优势。
尽管意识似乎是生命的定义特征（“我是有意识的，所以我是。”）或至少是动物生命的高级形式的特征，但它不能源自物理学。 它甚至无法通过仪器检测到。 蚂蚁是有意识的，还是有意识的？ 狗比人意识不清，蚂蚁比人意识不清吗？ 还是他们不那么聪明？ 我们怎么知道？ 这些问题看似愚蠢，但事实并非如此。 它们与我们的决策能力捆绑在一起，而物理学上说我们做不到。 同样，我们的大脑是物理系统，不能做出决定，就像落下的保龄球可以跌倒一样。
那里 必须 成为病毒
当人们对他们所钟爱的理论船进行激烈的意识形态战争时，他们往往会忽略木板上的裂缝，污点和泄漏。 进化论充满了这样的东西。 一个独立的怀疑论者可以大批指出它们。
一个明显的问题是男性同性恋。 同性恋者很少生孩子。 基因的传承对基因的传承没有怎样的贡献？ 该条件似乎是通过进化消除的主要候选条件，但显然它永远伴随着我们。 如果无法解释这一点，那么至少在这种情况下，理论上有问题。
在这里，进化论者退回到了他们的马奇诺线（Maginot Line）上，似是而非。 例如，犹他大学的物理学家格里格·科克伦（Greg Cochran）说，病毒会导致同性恋。 该病毒的证据？ 同性恋。 但不幸的是，该病毒的主要特征似乎是不可检测：没有人能找到它。 如果没有这种病毒，至少在这一点上，进化将失败。 因此，病毒必须，必须， 必须 存在。 我们从理论需求中推断出现实。
其他生殖性状也具有类似的莫名其妙的含义：自杀，受虐狂，虐待狂，精神分裂症等的生殖价值是什么？ 不应该从基因库中过滤掉这些吗？ 我们也必须调用病毒来解释这些吗？ 精神分裂症：一名尼安德特人，他认为中情局在他的牙齿上植入了发射器，并试图与科迪亚克熊握手，这可能会限制他的生殖机会。 虽然可以说用炸弹炸死自己的自杀是在散布他的DNA，但它的生殖作用很小。 然而，所有这些事情永远伴随着我们。
接下来，考虑疼痛。 如果踩碎玻璃杯，会很痛，所以就停止这样做，最后不要被狼残废和吞噬，这样您就可以在遇到和可亲的少女时传递您的基因。 这是有道理的。
没有道理的是，在很多情况下，受害者在服药前无法采取任何行动，从而造成痛苦的痛苦。 例如，肾结石令人麻痹。 视网膜后面的脉络膜出血是可怕的。 痛苦没有任何用处，因为前现代患者对此无能为力。 就此而言，偏头痛对生存的贡献尚不明显，因为一个人在地面上滚动并抓紧头部似乎容易被摄入。 不断。 为什么丰富的疼痛受体没有功能？ 他们为什么不像马克思的国家那样枯萎呢？
也许与其问：“进化如何解释事物？” 我们偶尔应该问：儿童在 进化解释了吗？”
道德领域之外的事物的明显例子是道德，对与错，善与恶。 达尔文主义者不能说某些事情本质上是错误的。 不能从物理学中得出“错误”。 相反，他必须证明道德行为的存在是因为它促进了基因的传递。 因此，当我的哥哥的腿断了时，我要让他恢复健康，因为我们在一起可以更好地保护自己和我们的女人，从而传递我们的基因。
当然，这会遇到各种各样的问题。 在穆斯林国家，“名誉杀人”被认为是可以接受的：杀害自己的女儿是因为发现自己在婚前从事过性生活（因此愿意遗传她和她父亲的基因，但没关系）。 在基督教国家，这被称为“一级谋杀”，很可能导致父亲坐在一根有趣的椅子上，电线在上面奔跑。 我们是否相信穆斯林基因组包含杀手基因？ 还是应该归咎于明显的解释，文化？
有趣的是，进化论者不相信自己的学说。 假设一个达尔文主义者发现我的爱好是使用喷灯将具有严重遗传缺陷的儿童折磨致死。 他会被惊吓，应该会。
“为什么？” 我会问。 “我们当然不希望遗传缺陷的年轻人传递其极度缺陷的基因。 照料他们会花费更多的资源来养育更多的孩子继续前进 我们的 基因。 折磨他们比立即杀死他们没有更多的进化意义。 实际上，我要做的只是终止某些化学反应并引发其他化学反应。 那您的反对是什么？”
他的反对意见当然是折磨儿童是错误的。 但是，同样，在达尔文主义等物理学领域也不存在“错误”。 域膨胀。
如果达尔文的解释是错误的，那么哪种解释是正确的？ 我可以信心十足地回答：“我不知道。” 许多人会同意我的看法。 其他人则坚持对所谓的“智能设计”的信念。 这是有人或某人或某物设计了宇宙，或者至少是其中的生命部分的观点。 这不是不合理的。 达尔文主义者同意事物看起来是精心设计的，但坚持认为其外观具有欺骗性。 宗教者毫不奇怪地发现ID是合意的，并将事物归因于其特定的神灵。 请注意，达尔文是否错的问题与人们可能认为对的事情无关，并且怀疑设计不需要宗教信仰。 地球可能是某个外星少年的培养皿，当母亲告诉他从冰箱里拿出他的科学项目时，地球可能会终结。
我们如何判断事物设计中是否涉及智力？ 威廉·登布斯基（William Dembsky）曾说过，如果某事件极不可能发生，但符合独立标准，则必须涉及情报。
假设在寻找外星智能时，您正在数字化来自另一个星系的信号。 这些将包括随机噪声，脉冲星发出的常规信号等等。 这里没有情报的迹象。 然后，有一天您会依次收到前一百个质数。 这是极不可能的。 但是它们符合一个独立的标准：质数的定义。 您的结论是它们具有智能来源。 这就是SETI的原理，即搜寻外星智能，与进化无关。
再次忽略明显的复杂性，基因组（定义一个人的信息）极不可能，但符合独立标准（密码子代码）。 因此，必须涉及智力。 在这里，我们将一百页的理论和数学压缩为两段，同时还遇到了一个令人着迷的问题，即信息是否应该将空间，时间，物质和能量结合在一起，成为现实的基本组成部分。
达尔文的黑匣子：进化的生化挑战 由里海大学生物化学教授Michael Behe撰写，对于那些不熟悉该主题的人来说，可能是最好的书，这些知识清晰易懂，通俗易懂，并且在附录中提供了技术细节。
单元中的签名：DNA和智能设计的证据，智能设计，作者：斯蒂芬·梅耶（Stephen C. Meyer）。 Meyer是一名受过培训的物理学家，他获得了剑桥大学的科学哲学博士学位。
达尔文的怀疑：动物生命的爆炸性起源和智能设计的案例 斯蒂芬·迈耶（Stephen C.Meyer）
不可否认：生物学如何证实我们的直觉，即生命是设计出来的 由道格拉斯·阿克斯（Douglas Axe）
Bravo Fred, great essay. Add some Phenomenon of Man 和 Devine Presence of Teilhard de Chardin, as salt and pepper! Enticing and all genuine!
Ahaaa! So, now you know how it feels when you talk shit about your commenters who often don’t agree with you. I know you are in Mexico and it’s probably scorpions rather than snakes that you handle. I can see you are somewhat religious right here, and I don’t know how many real teeth you have left. Alright, they exaggerate a little.
This is one of the subjects of yours that interests me quite a bit, and I even agree with you from what I usually read from you on it. I’ll read the whole thing, with likely no comment. Thanks!
Oh, is that you at the end of the video with the barbecued iguana?
I haven’t read this essay yet. It will be probably take me days to get around to it, but what is it with all the 帅哥 doing ID research? I have a bit of a crush on both Meyer and Axe, and then there’s this hottie, Jay Richards:
Like, WTF? Are they deliberately going out and finding these photogenic guys to advocate for theism or is it just a coincidence? The thought actually occurred to me that good-looking people might be more likely to believe in God on account of their charmed lives. I’d be interested in seeing some data on that.
They all fit Lovelock’s Gaia IMHO.
This is one of Fred’s best essays ever. I loved it the first time, and I came away convinced. It’s good to see it again. It has so many attractive traits that it keeps reappearing. It has some kind of literary advantage, but it was made by its creator, Fred.
Honestly, the evolution-true believers are the ones who had to form a cult based on flawed science and more flawed ideas to try to compensate for the fact sensible scientists of the era thought this was lunacy. Mostly just the usual drive to overthrow the civilizational order of things and remove “God.” I mean, it’s not like Lord Kelvin was an idiot, but here we are, with modern “scientific” types thinking anyone who can point out genetic flaws in Evolutionary theory is, as you say, “a snake-handling Christian.”
I really like your raids on the Church of Evolution. The dogmatic priests within its walls are unmoved by the attacks, but to us outside the walls the forays are enjoyable. As David Berlinski has said, Darwinian evolution is preposterous. I couldn’t agree more.
OT. I figured you had to be a fan of the great Ambrose Bierce. Anyone who can understand ‘The Devil’s Dictionary’ (not that many in my experience) is worth taking seriously. I always use the names Jogo Tyree and Gat Huckle online as an homage to his genius.
Good ol’ Fred brings out the old essay again with changes. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is obviously crap. Intelligence Design also doesn’t pass the smell test. I mean, look around.
Personally I’m leaning towards the alien playing a computer game like Tron and we are the algorithm’s creations. Deja vu’s are glitches, just like in The Matrix. What is real if anything?
If Earth is destroyed does the alien “lose” the game to his competitors on Planet X? Or does he win?
A year ago the simulation was much different. Now the game seems to be falling apart. Perhaps a computer virus has infected our Alien Computer Master’s game code?
The Alien needs to put on a mask and socially distance himself from his algorithm immediately.
Jay is gay and will one day be beaten to death by 75 filthy orcs at a black Lives Matter March. He will have died peacefully once his brains were stomped out of his skull. It’s just evolution. Soft and pretty Jay-types don’t last long in hard circumstances. Women wouldn’t want him either, seeing his obvious weakness.
Evolution and climate “science” are the PC of the scientific world. Valid scientific theories can make accurate predictions. The warmies make prediction after prediction that fail. Yet we are supposed to believe the next prediction, and give up our modern lifestyles to avert catastrophe. At least evolutionists don’t want to do that.
Having read this essay in full now, I can say that it only confirms my impressions of this whole controversy.
That is, evolution true-believers and skeptics are temperamentally different. To much ridicule, I surmised in a previous thread that evolution skeptics have a strong sense of “wonder and delight” about the natural world, and evolutionists do not. You are either impressed by certain things, such as ants forming into a collective ball to avoid drowning, or you are not. This seems to be an aesthetic judgment that cannot be resolved one way or the other.
On the other hand, evolution true-believers have a visceral antipathy to any explanation that has, as Stephen Meyer says, “theistic implications.” They are just repulsed by it, and this is evident in the fact that, as Mr. Reed demonstrates and repeatedly emphasizes throughout this piece, they equate plausibility with confirmation. In doing so, they make a clear value judgment about intelligence as a possible explanation. They are, in fact, so averse to it, that they consider the remotest possibility of a nearly-unthinkable series of coincidences to be a superior explanation than a “cause now in operation” (Meyer’s term for intelligence as a known, observable cause of information such as hieroglyphics, computer code, or DNA). It is not possible to reason with such people.
Now do astronomy. Talk about over stepping your limits.
Tell me how you can ascertain the actual size, climate, habitability of a newly discovered planet that you can’t even see through a telescope, just the effects it has on a star which is also difficult to gather much information.
We have to take their word for it. What status or funding can be achieved if a class of scientists admitted to how much of their work is pure speculation and conjecture.
A great article!
I discovered Rupert Sheldrake some time ago. His theory of morphic resonance is interesting.
Everyone wants his particular discipline to be scientific to the point of fraudulently using the word ‘science’ as part of the title to the discipline or the general area, such as ‘social science’ or ‘political science’. Those attempts to associate themselves with science are clearly bogus, but doesn’t dissuade them from trying to elevate their nonsense by association.
Whole fields of inquiry are largely just an ongoing fraud perpetrated by ‘priests’ that believe in their nonsense and demand we take them seriously. A huge portion of the population has little to no scientific background and are easily swayed by some PhD in Economics, Philosophy, Sociology, etc because they have a university vouching for their bullshit.
This is the real problem in science to day. The university system bestows legitimacy on disciplines that can’t prove a damned thing.
If they do find one, I’d like to move there. This planet is going off the rails.
The earth has a natural history, it’s recorded in the rocks.
It’s how we know where to find and drill for oil.
There’s a particular point in the geological strata, 65 million years ago, where there is what used to be called the “iridium anomaly”.
Huge spike in iridium, a rare earth element. It’s been found on every continent.
Below this line, dinosaur fossils.
Above this line, no dinosaur fossils have been found.
Above this line, a mass extinction, followed by an amazingly fast evolution of new species.
Most notably, the adaptive radiation of mammals into ecological niches formerly occupied by dinosaurs.
Thanks to Walter Alvarez, et. al., we know this was due to a meteor or comet, striking the earth at close to a 45 degree angle in Chicxulub, Yucatan.
Bad day for planet earth.
Intelligent design leads to the conclusion that in order to create the intelligent designer’s crowning achievement, 智人, the intelligent designer had to shoot a bb (meteor) or spitball (comet) at the earth to clear a path for human evolution (guided of course, by this intelligent designer).
As the theologians would say, “It’s a mystery.”
A nice. long article, Fred – I always appreciate your work, even if I disagree with some of it…
My tendency is to go with the least complicated explanation, which is that of the materialists, although the possibility of some transcendent ‘designer’, YHWH or the alien student, can never be disproved. This view is simplest in that it does not require the addition of yet another force to our universe. I acknowledge the ID people’s issues where they cannot see how many of these evolutionary steps could have come about, but absence of knowledge is not the same as impossibility. After all, most of our modern world would have seemed impossible only a few years ago, and having a working radio a few centuries ago would be proof certain of witchcraft.
I think the issue the ID group has with evolution is virtually identical to that of the Creationists; evolution of man from a primitive organism by purely material means is felt by them to deny a ‘special place’ for humans in the scheme of things and deny us a ‘Reason For Being’. If we just got here by a series of stochastic events and the slow drift of organic chemicals, then what is the point of it all? My view is that since there is not a provable ‘Reason’, it frees me to find my own. If others want a more Cosmic Reason, one might believe we were put here to free the trapped carbon from the earth’s crust and prevent the low-carbon-dioxide death that the earth’s biome faced during the last Ice Age. Since we are doing such a good job at it, who can argue that we weren’t specifically put here for that purpose?
For those who wish to add additional trauma to their intellect, there is always my article on the ‘Evolution Wars’ on my website – in itself, quite subversive…
There’s a site on the Net called ‘Ask a geologist’; I don’t recall the URL.
Given the Iridium layer is purported to have been deposited in a short period of time, I asked where did all the dirt above that layer come from.
All I got was a feigned not understanding this simple question. I’m still interested in knowing how Geologists can ignore this issue. It would imply that the earth is growing in size over time; a taboo thought. The idea that volcanic activity, erosion and similar processes can account for the dirt is unsatisfying.
An increasing mass of the earth would help explain how a dinosaur neck could have supported its weight when lower gravity was associated with a lower earth mass. The new ‘matter’ could be the result of energy to matter conversion via the never ending stream of energy bombarding the earth from the sun and cosmos, along with the occasional bolide collisions. The idea that earth got its water from comets is ludicrous, as an aside.
Plate tectonics is another problem. I can see the mountains resulting from plates crashing into each other, but I see no evidence of subduction. Subduction is necessary to keep the earth from growing, according to theory.
From my perspective, multiple wrongs make a right when referring to geology and is why I consider it a half baked science.
This post is a case in point. There are things evolutionists can’t explain. There are things ID proponents can’t explain. Temperamental atheists choose to disregard the explanatory deficits of Darwinism as a matter of Will, not Intellect. One could argue, of course, that ID proponents do the same. I’m OK with that.
Nonetheless, I would argue that any smoking gun necessarily overrides any explanatory deficit or unexpected observation, and the necessary priority of genetic information to cellular life is, if anything, better than a smoking gun. Information does not generate itself. Information comes from intelligence, and only from intelligence.
Here again we see the primacy of aesthetic judgments in this debate. I cannot think of any simpler (i.e. more elegant) explanation for life than an Intelligent Author of the Genetic Information that gives rise to life.
Not to attack you, Daruma, you seem to be a decent person, and as entitled to your own subjective impressions of simplicity as I am to mine.
An absolutely fascinating essay. Definitely food-for-thought for a long time to come!
But it does make me wonder about a third alternative, and the possibility that both creationists and evolutionists have got entirely the wrong end of the stick.
The assumption for both positions seems to be that as far as life is concerned, we on earth live in the best and most perfectly complex of worlds. The disagreement appears to center on how we arrived at that state.
What direction would that conversation take if it turned out that the initial and foundational assumption of both opposing camps were false?
I feel confident in stating that the 5 senses available to us are woefully inadequate for accurately perceiving the reality we move through. Even if humans had the visual acuity of hawks, or the olfactory prowess of bloodhounds – amplified though they may be – these are still the same sensory apparatuses already available to us. They would still provide the exact same sensory experience of our reality and the exact same information – just “better”, or “more comprehensive”, perhaps.
However, for example, much progress has been made in mathematical proofs within the theoretical physics community that there are actually 26 mathematically provable (or at least viable) dimensions (bosonic string theory) or possibly 10 dimensions (superstring theory) that though we can mathematically prove, our 5 senses aren’t equipped to detect. I won’t try to explain the math or pretend I understand it fully, because frankly I’m not nearly bright enough. But assuming the proofs are correct, this adds a whole new dimension (if you’ll pardon me) to the conversation.
What if the world we perceive as being perfect and irreducible in its complexity is actually a grievous flaw brought about by our central nervous system’s inability to comprehend that which is a mystery in 3 dimensional perception, but perfectly comprehensible in 26/10?
And I use the statement “3 dimensions” with purpose, as “time” is not a dimension – it’s a trick played on our CNS by our 5 senses. But this is another conversation.
The example Fred offers of the perfect complexity of the eye’s ability to focus on an object, transmit the information to the brain, and make sense of the data so close to “instantaneously” as to be indistinguishable from “instantaneous” by means of an incredibly complex system of physiology is, of course, absolutely stunning. One could spend a lifetime of research on this phenomenon and how it came to be and not even scratch the surface. The issue is, however, that it is a perfectly understandable and demonstrable explanation of the sense of sight. And the sense of sight may well be useless in understanding and making sense of the reality we exist in. It may actually be a hinderance to understanding the origins of life and reality. It’s what I might call “The Microscope Paradox”:
You can’t use the same microscope to examine the microscope that you are examining with the microscope you are using to examine and define objective parameters for the microscope.
You need a baseline reference point, and in questions such as posed in the excellent article above, such a reference point simply can’t exist in 3 dimensions perceived with 5 senses.
So – what if terrestrial life, as opposed to being a sublime work of either accident or design is actually a colossal cockup?
How would one know?
I admit that the following is the crudest of analogies, but I think I can make my point with it –
Assume a factory somewhere with an assembly line-type function that’s purpose was to make carburetors. Due to an inherent defect in the assembly process, this factory instead made lumps of metal that invariably catch fire and explode. Due to this inherent defect, this is simply “what the end product does”. Assume that you were unable to perceive that the purpose of the factory was to make carburetors. Would it be unreasonable to postulate that you might think that the purpose of the entire assemblage was to create lumps of metal that, when activated, catch fire and explode? Might you stand in awe of the process that must be carried out in *确切地* the correct sequence to produce a product that catches fire and explodes? Might you spend your entire life meticulously researching the methodology for producing the exploding scrap-metal effect and feel confident that you’ve solved the puzzle of “why” it happens, but be at a complete loss to explain “how” the process came to be? And is it unreasonable to think that you might become so immersed in the “whys” and “hows” and “how perfectly it destroys itself/creates a glorious explosion” of the puzzle that it would never occur to you that the entire system was meant to produce something else entirely?
I’m just taking a thought and running with it. I think some things might simply be unknowable, and I think that’s okay.
Anyhow – thanks to Fred for a provoking essay!
Good scientists, I have learned, are fanatical autists who live, eat, breathe, and shit their field of study. When you start seeing non-asian coloreds, women (particularly fat ones) and (((scientists))), that should be an automatic indicator that the field is no longer about inquiry, but authority abuse.
Here’s a test I learned a while back. Ask the “scientist” to explain scientific method. The answer should be simple and contain these five things:
If they don’t nail these or even get anywhere close, not a real scientist. Fuck the title and fuck the paper. You’re dealing with an ideologue retard.
I got about 3/4 of the way-I will come back.
All very well stated.
The insanity and pure stupidity of evolution is stunning once you finally make the break and quite believing it.
And the implications for the world of science and the world of authority, in general, is also stunning.
Its all bullsh**
You are absolutely right that in the absence of evidence, this is all a matter of conjecture and aesthetic judgement.
My own judgement is that invoking a Designer, whether intelligent or not, just adds another layer of questions – such as why would Anyone bother. But then again, who am I to question the motive of the Gods…
I am not unsympathetic to this view, as there is no doubt that prestige of science can be abused by frauds pushing a nefarious agenda. The problem is that social life sometimes requires that decisions be made. Often, proper ethical decision-making requires the discovery of facts. Unlike questions of value, questions of fact can never be answered from the comfort of your own armchair. Controlled observation is required. What then should we call such inquiries? “Social science” seems as good a term as any.
I haven’t read all of the comments yet, but will after I finish reading this column. I have been amused by the infinite number of monkeys/infinite number of typewriters probability conundrum since 1960, when I first heard Bob Newhart’s commentary about it. Fred’s math is fine, but Newhart’s dismantling of the argument is hilarious. Newhart described a situation in which the monkeys were being monitored by humans, and he reported this to show the futility of the argument that they could eventually write all of the great books. From Wikipedia: Comedian Bob Newhart had a stand-up routine in which a lab technician monitoring an “infinitely many monkeys” experiment discovered that one of the monkeys has typed something of interest. A typical punchline would be: “Hey, Harry! This one looks a little famous: ‘To be or not to be – that is the gggzornonplatt.’”
‘Nuff said. Ours is a mysteriously and beautifully complex universe, IMHO.
The problem is that social life sometimes requires that decisions be made.
When you start from a flawed premise, all sorts of errors will occur. Your use of the plural ‘decisions’ as opposed to the singular ‘decision’ is where your error starts. There are no decisions, because it eventually boils down to a singular decision imposed from above.
It is the desire by controllers to impose their version of what’s reasonable that inevitably produces the next set of social issues. If individuals were simply left alone to decide for themselves what their response should be to a given issue, we wouldn’t need the control freaks in gov’t and academia declaring what we all should think and how we all should act.
If your description in the plural were accurate, we’d have millions of independent decisions being made and over time a natural social consensus would get established with some outliers where we could agree to disagree. It’s when the phony PhD’s get involved to demand we listen to their sage advice that things go off the rails. Inevitably new laws are established to enforce their opinions under penalty.
Just look at the current election fiasco. Half the country want the left cheek hemorrhoid and the other want the right cheek hemorrhoid. The only reasonable thing to do is to void the process because making THE decision in either direction produces the wrong outcome depending on perspective.
This is why I’m a political anarchist. The very idea that a singular enforced decision needs to be made is bullshit.
And the believer in intelligent design can only answer, like the the sophisticated theologian, “It’s a mystery.”
Of course, the problem with this view is that it imputed infallibility to aggregate decision-making, and in so doing, fails to take account of the need for top-down decision-making in all sorts of scenarios, often involving the tragedy of the commons, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, or other such conundrums from game theory. If ecologists tell you that a certain fish is being harvested to extinction and everyone will have to lay off for part of the year, this must be backed up by force of law, as it is in every individual’s interest to catch the remaining fish before someone else does. Of course, if I know that others are being forced to follow the rules, I will b happy to follow them myself.
Yes, this is a power that can be abused, and the libertarian temptation is to abolish power rather than ensure that it is exercised by appropriate, representative, and honest elites. This will never work. All but the most primitive societies have government of some sort. That is not a coincidence.
I didn’t know you do comedy.
There’s a line in a Jimmy Buffett song – ‘we are the people our parents warned us about’.
Government IS the marauding band of cutthroats and thieves they claim to protect us against. Who else steals half your hard earned income to allocate it to programs you personally detest?
Gov’t is always and everywhere the problem. It is never the solution, as history attests with its endless wars and stifling influence.
Yes, that’s a thing, and it correlates remarkably well with overall quality of life.
Perhaps you’d rather live in Somalia or Liberia than New Zealand or Denmark?
No, that is indeed a mystery, but a smoking gun it is not. According to Bill Gates, DNA is like “a computer program, but far, far more advanced than anything we’ve ever created.” That is effectively a smoking gun. In no other circumstance whatsoever would anyone doubt the inference of design.
Darwinists claim that life could have evolved by chance. If this is untenable, it doesn’t matter that your idea of a perfect designer (and mine, for that matter) would have done things differently. Design errors do not make possible what is impossible. Such things don’t even rebut the inference of design. All they do is call into question the apparent competence of the designer.
There isn’t an honest politician in the entire world. The concept of gov’t dissuades an honest person from getting involved. Gov’t is nothing but the enshrinement of graft and corruption. The difference between Somalia and New Zealand is the extent of the corruption and the base upon which it rests. There’s more to steal in New Zealand than Somalia, so the percentage of theft is lower while the absolute amount is higher.
FYI I’m a US expat living on the island or Roatan, 洪都拉斯. I moved to Honduras to get away from the predatory nature and police state that is the US Fed Gov.
Here, I’m largely left alone. All taxes are much more reasonable, the weather is certainly more to my liking as I hate the cold, and the rules and regulations are almost nonexistent. There are no cop cars chasing me down to ticket me for some non crime. There are no parking meters, or traffic lights. I haven’t had vehicle insurance for 16 years as it’s not mandatory. There are Covid cases on the island but the deaths attributable to it are very low. My wife and I are known throughout the community and we’ve had the president and members of the Honduran Supreme Court as our customers. I have the mayor’s and governor’s phone numbers and email addresses.
Gov’t here is very local. Gov’t in the US is so far detached from the average person’s reality that it is a tyranny because no one has any way to state their opinions. Gov’t in the US is a machine grinding down the working class for the benefit of the 1% and the human filth on the welfare rolls.
You can keep your ‘quality of life’ and I’ll keep mine. I have the benefit of knowing both systems whereas all you have is ingested propaganda to make sure you never learn of your true situation by voting with your feet.
Hmmm. So in other words, you got yours by benefitting from the infrastructure of a first world country, but instead of paying your share to maintain it for future generations, you took your greenbacks to a Third-World country where you lord it over the locals. Got it.
And BTW, be careful about making assumptions about other people’s life experiences.
Everything I got, I paid for. At that point it is mine to do with as I wish. I just realized that I could get treated better somewhere else. A few thousand other USians and Canadians are here as well.
Your condescending – Got it – speaks volumes. You can stay and be bled to bankruptcy as the US Dollar collapses, but I’ve decided that won’t happen to me. Keep paying your ‘share’ until there’s either nothing left or you wise up. You can continue living in a police state if you like. I simply choose not to.
Ask yourself if the direction the US is heading instills any confidence in your future. I answered that question honestly 16 years ago.
It certainly doesn’t, but then I don’t attribute that to a problem with government as such. The fact that we have shitty elites doesn’t mean that elites are invariably shitty. Indeed, one might wonder how the widespread prosperity of the fifties ever happened to begin with if honest leadership doesn’t exist.
Quite apart from that, you utterly fail to take account of the fact that private tyranny is as burdensome as public tyranny. I don’t care that much about taxes. I care more about the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment. My intellectual freedom is my first priority, apart from demographics. And who is censoring people? Big Tech.
In your last post, you called my mother and I (along with millions of other decent White people) “human filth” for having benefited from welfare. I really hate when people do that, but then I suppose I should be grateful that you at least call us 人 filth rather than subhuman filth. In any event, I don’t think you’re in any position to go around calling people “condescending.”
BTW, are you a real working-class guy, or are you the wealthy-enough-to-buy-a-lucrative-business kind of “working-class guy” (i.e. Joe the Fake Plumber).
The 50’s were the last hurrah for the US as it produced what the world needed after WW-II. Any ‘leadership’ was simply taking credit for what the average person and business produced. The 60’s started the downhill trend and by the early 70’s when Nixon closed the gold window that was the the start of the death of the dollar and the end of the US. The concept of the USA is nearing its expiration date. I’ll live long enough to see it go the way of the USSR.
I was too ignorant of the slide to notice it for decades, but all became clear after 2001. It’s only gotten worse since. The private tyranny you speak of is condoned and encouraged by the gov’t to circumvent your rights. The gov’t is thrilled by Silicon Valley doing what it might be difficult for them to do openly. I’m of the opinion that Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc are creatures of the spook agencies, either directly or via the doors that were opened for them to produce the private panopticon. That the NSA is capturing all phone calls and email should tell you where your elites ethics are. Neither party wants to upset the deep state because the deep state IS the gov’t and all the elected puppets dance to their tune. That’s why voting is for the terminally stupid and actually helps foster the out of control gov’t by providing it with an aura of respectability, totally undeserved.
I’m the first person in my family to graduate high school. I was a working class guy for about 10 years (software development), after which I became a business owner or an independent consultant always computer and software related. I didn’t waste my time in college studying basket weaving rubbish but got engineering degrees. I paid for my education myself.
Right, and how much was the tuition back then? I have no doubt it was heavily subsidized by donors or taxpayers, as the case may be. In typical boomer fashion, you refuse to acknowledge the unprecedented privilege your generation enjoyed and then promptly squandered.
Well, you know what they say about opinions. In any event, it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. I want the government to force these outfits to abide by the First Amendment, even though it doesn’t apply to them by the letter of the law. You are ideologically bound to oppose that on principle.
Let’s take this up somewhere else, shall we? This is OT here.
我不够聪明，无法理解进化论，我可以学习流行论点的两面，并模仿我喜欢的那一种，就像 Fred 所做的那样。 但我并不特别在意一种或另一种方式，也不是一般科学的忠实粉丝。 我们知道的足够多，可以制造一些很酷的东西，比如大电视和我在 Xhamster 上看到的为男性自我愉悦而设计的日益复杂（不断发展？）的机器，但科学对 90% 的事情一无所知宇宙是或确实。 我们得分 10，60 是 D-。
无论进化是什么，它仍然是生物学研究的基础。 也许这是错误的，我们错过了 90%？ 谁知道？ 90% 的男性不知道前列腺在他们生活中的作用。 天哪，90% 或更多的女性在谈话中提出观点时会笑得太多。 这是怎么回事，一种行为演变为防止他们被打？
对于任何讨论进化的人，我最深刻的建议是一个简单的事实，即进化科学与生命的起源无关。 Fred 的文章有一半被浪费在驾驶 2 个轮子的沟里。 另一半被来自探索研究所的想法所浪费。 研究 Behe 和其他小丑的背景比阅读他们受过良好教育的半途而废的科学尝试学到的要多得多。
最后，想想那两位伟大的美国天主教徒，拜登和臭名昭著的 ACB。 教皇说，进化是真正的交易，是对伟大设计师工作方式的真实描述。 尽管极端复杂性通常是糟糕设计的标志。 就像航天飞机……
You keep building straw men and then knocking them down as though there’s any truth to your fantasy.
I started working the day I turned 16, as a stock boy in the neighborhood supermarket. Within 6 months, I was the frozen food manager. I did that job for 29 hours a week through the tail end of high school and 4 years of college, week in and week out. During summer vacation, once in college, I worked shape up at the 4 breweries in New York – Schlits, Piels, Rheingold and Schaefer in addition to the supermarket. I also designed and built burglar alarms out of electronic parts that I installed in the neighborhood.
My college tuition was about $2000 per semester. I never got a dime of money I didn’t earn. My parents couldn’t afford the tuition at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, so I had to earn the money myself. B’klyn Poly was a private institution and not funded by taxes.
I want the gov’t to disappear like a bad smell. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, long since abandoned by TPTsB. Trying to do a Lazarus act on it is futile.
BTW – If it were up to me, you and your mother wouldn’t have gotten a penny of public funds. Charity is what the god business is supposed to provide to the ‘needy’ and is why they pay no taxes.
Of course, it never worked that way in reality. My mother would have wound up as another maiden tribute of Babylon, and eventually, roadkill, with me following suit in short order, no doubt.
I feel the same way about people like you.
Beautifully written, Fred! Thank you for that. I know the marxists always give you a lot of grief for challenging their favorite religious theory, but you need to say what you know is true. This is your legacy. It makes this world a better place.
This article should be required reading for all high school and college children.
Evolution – what’s in a name. Everything is a mutation of once was before – if you want to call that evolution, devolution, no solution, the revolution, or environmental pollution or an act of god is up to you.
I heard Axe’s name many years ago when was he was still at university (was it at Oxford?), so I assumed he was being groomed as a rising star – will be interesting to read his piece.
I had a poster like that on the wall in my college dorm room!
Interesting and thought provoking.
However, I wonder if you are not perhaps inverting cause and effect? What seems to be temperament in the evolutionist faithful might, I posit, merely be the neurological impact of refusing to see that which is not convenient to a worldview previously adopted for tribal or other reasons.
The average high school student today has neither the attention span to read the entire article nor the knowledge of molecular biology to understand Fred’s discussion of codons.
I’m a synthetic organic chemist. I suffered a term of biochem. I decided to vote “no.” There are so many small molecule ways to shut it all down, DOI:10.1186/s40104-017-0180-6
Excellent article. Many thanks, Fred Reed. The sarcastic zingers were creative, witty and spot on target. Score at the top of the ninth looks likes Intelligent Design 1, Evolution 0.
BTW, shouldn’t you have included in the recommendation at the end the recent book by Marcos Eberlin, ‘Foresight: How the chemistry of life reveals planning and purpose’ ?
Some grist for your mill. It will not help improve any of your credibility, if you buy into it, because it’s quite crazy, but seems to be true all the same.
Basically, we tend to think of plants as not being reactive to their environment. But plants are reactive to their environment and do react in real time, in sophisticated and sometimes seemingly thoughtful ways, they just happen to do it in ways (and often on time scales) that are nearly impossible for us as animals to appreciate without a lot of dedicated scientific study and sometimes exotic and high tech equipment.
Repeated experiments have shown that not only are they perceptive of and reactive to their environment, but plants have something equivalent to or easiest to understand as, the ability to retain information about their environment and modify their behavioral response based on that information (learning, memory), the ability to transmit the information to other plants (communication), awareness of other plants and both cooperative and competitive strategies, and even social structures or something like an in-group and out-group, changing their behavior in response to other plants based on how closely related they are, like being cooperative with immediate relatives but competitive with everything else (tribalism). And they do all these things without any brain, or even any nervous system.
In the animal kingdom, it has been well demonstrated that some birds like parrots and crows are far, far smarter than a cow and perhaps more intelligent than a dog or something on the level of a flying monkey. However a cow has a brain as big as a crow’s entire body, and a crow has a brain smaller than a pea. But crows are capable of tool use, and cows aren’t. There’s more going on that just size.
Fair enough – except some things just do not lend themselves to experiment; “prediction” is more neutral (Popper got his ass on some rather hot plate when he declared ESP to be “science” and paleontology not so much 😛 ).
– The scientist is not “a”theist, more like Epikurean non-theist (=”whatever gods there are, they dwell in places and do stuff of no consequence to us mortals”).
Or, as Laplace put it “Sire, I had no need for that hypothesis”.
Teilhard de Chardin went as far as he could without leaving science (but for a teensy bit of speculation), and it barely kept him off the Index; clearly theism is tenable (if at all) only in the Augustinian sense (“rationes seminales”), but Divine intervention under Heisenberg is not to the Holy See´s liking either 😀
As Fred deigns not even offer a conflicting and testable hypothesis and his “counter-examples” are the same old and lame …
Erm, no. It´s a crude example, but the most striking (heh) of the 36 or so mass die-offs (that we know of). No entelechia => no design.
It isn´t “just a crater”. Alvarez&Alvarez had enough circumstantial evidence to predict the size (100-200km), location (Gulf of Mexico) and age (K/T boundary) before a science journalist remembered a problem the Mayan archeologists had (distribution of the cenotes).
It doesn´t get more elegant than that – not in this world.
On what basis do you make this assertion?
What part of THERE-IS-NO-PLAN is so hard to understand?
You are not paying attention – I said atheism is unscientific.
So why don´t you say what you REALLY want?
– Afraid of kicking the bucket?
I recommend Sokrates´ Apologia: Either there is an afterlife, in which case I am not afraid of it; or there isn´t, and which king would not regard a dreamless sleep as his best?
– Or is it Dostojewskij´s “If there is no god, everything is permitted”?
Frankly I have always found that a wee bit hysterical; and if you do not have the brains to do the right thing without fearing Odhinn´s lightning up your pooter, I´m afraid ye olde tyme religion isn´t going to help either.
… and none of this has anything to do with science 😉
If you’re going to apply theology to come up with a 终极目的 for mammalian evolution, post Chicxulub, we only have the cosmic trickster:
And the joke’s on you!
Be a mensch and click the reply button when you’re going back and forth with people.
That isn’t really the question at hand. The question is whether it is possible that life could have come about by chance, and if it could have, whether design, chance, or some other alternative is the best explanation for the origin of biological information and cellular life. Whether there is some overarching plan is another question.
I think your argument is essentially as follows:
If there were a designer, we would be able to discern a plan.
We can’t discern a plan.
Therefore, there is no designer.
The problem is with your first premise. I see atheists arguing in this fashion all the time, and it always mystifies. I will grant you that mass extinction events are relevant to the question of whether there is a designer, and that such events make the existence of a designer less probable than it would be without the mass extinction events.
The problem is that you have to weigh 所有证据, not just bits and pieces, and at the end of the day, you still cannot account for, inter alia, the origin of biological information.
I’ll tell you what. I won’t psychoanalyze you if you don’t psychoanalyze me. Otherwise, I’ll have to start asking questions about why you are afraid that you might have to meet your Maker in the next life.
It certainly does. Darwinists claim their theory is scientific. Therefore, it’s antithesis must also be scientific. Otherwise, you effectively put Darwin above empirical scrutiny.
The best argument Darwinists have, in my opinion, is the practical one. Methodological naturalism is a good working assumption for science because it prevents facile “God did it” type explanations. The problem is that Darwinism does not explain what it purports to explain, and the scientific establishment is not being honest about that. Methodological naturalism is treated as dogmatic truth rather than working assumption, such that certain explanations are a priori inadmissible.
Stephen Meyer has always said that textbooks should “teach the controversy.” By that he means simply that students should be apprised of explanatory deficits and scientific criticisms of Darwinism. (Yes, these exist.) There would be no need for any talk of intelligent design let alone God, just the facts. There is no good faith objection to that.
(Apologies to the moderator for the length of this comment.)
Didn´t mean to be rude – quite the contrary 😀
And pardon my forgetting the reply button – again.
– Materialism (a Weltsicht) leans on Darwinism (a Theory) as an explanatory model.
If your beef is with materialism, feel free – but go and pester the neuroscientists.
Attacks on Darwinism only amount to the proverbial sow rubbing against the German oak – which, as Wyatt #23 ably pointed out, doth not science constitute; just a bunch of unconscionable conmen preying on dangerous dimwits – there is no “controversy”.
– Sure, if Alvarez&Alvarez taught us anything it is to not get too comfortable on our
actualistic laurels 😛
On the “origin” hypotheses I would rate Manfred Eigen the most highly – impressive command of biology, chemistry and information theory (and slightly above the humble one).
Of course it is just speculation – “chemoevolution” being an extrapolation of Darwin to the prebiotic realm; we know the ozone layer selected for proteins and nucleic acids, but precious little else.
– Contrary to popular belief the purpose of the Method is not to know everything (which would bore the scientist out of his wits; yes, I said his.) but to keep the juggernaut moving.
Not too long ago people believed mountains are made by titans, fossils by a vis formativa and organic compounds by vis vitalis. So what? Despite causing much hilarity now Ussher´s calculation of the date of Creation or Chladni´s listing of “flatulences” under “natural” and “daemones” under “supernatural” causes of earthquakes were serious SCIENCE.
Does it diminish Aristoteles to have rated women as inferior because they have fewer teeth? He gave us the Method (and invented the female orgasm, but that´s a different story).
Bref, your arguing like a constipated cat (sorry) only shows you have no defensible hypothesis, not even an observation. So what´s the point?
Right, and insofar as Darwinism is untenable, materialism is thus called into question. The scientific establishment doesn’t like this, so they conceal problems with Darwinism from the general public while privately trying to salvage their failing theory.
Of course not, because you define science such as to exclude any alternative to Darwinism a priori. And voila – all scientists agree with Darwinism!
But lemme guess, you didn’t mean to be rude.
So what? That science has found natural causes for things previously believed to have supernatural causes doesn’t guarantee that that will always be the case, the materialist “God-of the-gaps” nonsense. As always, the atheist demands that we throw the fight at precisely the time things are getting interesting. Well, no. We’re not doin’ that.
In case you haven´t noticed you are forcing me into a position I do not like.
(baaaaad idea 😛 )
I have no intention of defending materialism (which I consider unhealthy), much less Histomat (which is neither).
– Evolution has been self-evident since long before Darwin, and entelechia has been laid to rest before also; he merely proposed a viable mechanism (as opposed to Lamarck). Of course he wasn´t perfect (he overlooked intraspecific=sexual selection, among other things).
There are no Prophets in science – oftimes an idea (like an invention) “hangs in the air” and it doesn´t matter terribly much who plucks it (Alfred R. Wallace had priority and a deeper understanding but was an autodidact and lost his collections in a shipwreck).
– Anti-scientism is a comparatively recent (even Galilei was encouraged in his work by the pope) and American phenomenon (the Scofield abomination). Whatever may be said against the Catholic Church, their thinkers have always been preeminent. You seem not to be familiar with Catholic terminology – I recommend Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit and paleontologist. He doesn´t go much beyond Schelling (romanticist) and Haeckel (a kind of prehistoric Dawkins) but is way less speculative and self-contradictory.
– To have an actual “debate” you´d have to teach history and theory of science in HS;
I´m all for it but my alma mater, the cradle of modern geology, just replaced it with mandatory djenndah … we are doomed 😀
I am not anti-science. That is a cheap ad hominem. When are you going to tell me where information comes from if not intelligence?
‘As an example, consider the view that life arose by chemical misadventure. ‘
I claim it was not a misadventure at all, but probably inevitable.
Easy to prove. Just set up conditions like they were when the Earth was formed and wait a few billion years. Once that is complete, we can talk again.
‘Yet in the November, 2005 Scientific American, an article argues that life may have begun elsewhere, perhaps on Mars, and arrived here on meteorites. ‘
OK, Fred, so life started somewhere else in the universe instead of here. This begs the question.
‘Consequently, discussion often relies on vague and murky assertion, or ignores obvious questions. ‘
Without repeating the entire paragraph. Let’s just say each creature has its own way of making sure creature like that survive. Either they breed like rabbits and reproduce as fast as predators can eliminate them, or they can hide really well, or run fast, or have a hard shell, poisonous bite, or are the toughest one out there.
‘First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence.’
Evolution was expressed as scientific THEORY, and is still treated like that today. No reputable scientist claims they know all the answers, this is because no one was there to observe when life first came into being. There are, however, unmistakable patterns of how similar one set of creatures are to another.
‘Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science.’
See my comments about THEORY, above.
‘Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat.’
This is because in many cases, they are. There are some extremists, who attempt to treat evolution as a fact, rather than a theory, these are people who have faith in it. Faith is not science.
Creationists, however base their beliefs entirely on faith, which is liberating in that it allows one to believe in things that contradict observable evidence. Don’t look too closely at anything which contradicts faith.
‘Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry.’
See my comments about theory, faith and extremists above.
‘These men (almost all of them are) have frequently been very bright indeed, often Ivy League professors, some of them with names you would recognize.’
Just because one has an education does not make one bright. The following comment is just my personal opinion, but my theory is schools do not teach you to think, they teach you not to think.
‘To my mind they constitute the best evidence that we did not descend from monkeys, but have not yet ascended to them.’
Darwin never said that. he said Primates have a common ancestor. To my knowledge no one has declared otherwise.
‘We now believe that nothing is or can be beyond our powers.’
That is a statement of faith, so you are a Creationist after all? ;->
‘Can anyone believe that describing Creation in high schools will deter students from studying biochemistry, and turn them into intellectual loin-cloth wearers burning textbooks?’
So you claim this has not happened before? Has religion attempted to suppress knowledge in the past? Ask Copernicus…
I claim Schools ought to be based upon community standards, but no one listens to me, at least no one with enough authority.
‘Interestingly, atheism has to be part of the evolutionist’s mental equipment’
No, it doesn’t. I do not know if Thomas Edison had thought regarding evolution, but he did believe in a creator of the Universe.
‘Before going further, let us look at some of the questions ignored by evolutionism.’
Keep in mind since no one was there to observe it (or if there were, they aren’t talking), there are things evolution cannot explain, but what is there that contradicts it?
‘Consider the assertion famously made by James Jeans, often cited in connection with evolution, that a monkey typing randomly at a keyboard would eventually write all the books in the British Museum. This sounds plausible and, in a purely mathematical sense, is true.’
Consider you are taking Mr Jeans absolutely literally? Suppose the Monkey has a vocabulary, that some collection of letters don’t form valid words, much like some collection of protons and neutrons do not form valid elements? Now suppose the Monkey has an understanding of valid ways words fit together, much like some combinations of elements form valid chemical compounds.
Now do your math…
‘Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas.’
What do you mean by ‘inadvertence ‘?
‘A Few Early Questions’
No, we do not KNOW what the early seas consisted of. We do know that when conditions like what we suspect the early earth was like are created here in the laboratory, Amino Acids form.
When these Amino Acids are subjected to catastrophic impact, such as the impact of a meteor, peptides form. When enough peptides are chained together, proteins form.
Yes, we can prove whether life formed the way evolutionists claim. Just create conditions like they were in the primordial Earth, and wait, say 4 billion years. See what I said at the beginning of this.
I will say you are right in that the essay is criminally long.
I am going to avoid that mistake and shorten this up.
You claim evolutionists don’t KNOW the theory is right. I repeat, no respectable scientist claims to know. You claim it is unbelievable such a complex thing as life came about accidently. I claim under the right conditions it is likely to form, maybe inevitable.
In spite of all the complexity you point out, note that life here on Earth has similarities, suggesting there was a commonality of some sort. Maybe you are not contesting the theory that life evolved from simpler forms, just that life came into being spontaneously. If that is the case then I will hold off on further discussion.
Rosie, please, you’re married.
Let me guess, Jimbo, green eyes?
“This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.”
This sounds suspiciously like the insanity surrounding the Corona Monster, more commonly known as the Covid Aberration. Much of this, most especially the part about ‘intense discomfort with admitting to error’, ring true in today’s society. My guess is that, sooner or later (if we don’t already), most of us will come to the conclusion that our reaction to it really wasn’t such a good idea and should be abandoned. Some of us, however, are True Believers, and will never admit to anything except that they are right.
Good word, Fred. Carry on.
Nope! Half-Greek. Just the good half. Brown.
…Oh, that’s a surprise.
Good grief. Now this comment is indeed criminally long. Anyway…
Wow, that’s a nice, comfy little perch you’ve set Darwinism on there, now isn’t it?
Anyway, since we’ll all be dead in a few billion years, we can rely on mathematical probability in the meantime. Read Doug Axe, and we can talk again.
The problem here is that such similarities are as well explained by a common designer as common descent.
This is a fair point, so long as you are talking about bona fide Biblical (young-earth) creationists. They start with the Biblical text, and look for evidence to support that particular narrative. Intelligent Design (old-Earth Creationism, if you prefer) starts with empirical observations and argues from there. It cannot and does not claim to support any particular revelation.
You are correct in my comment is long, and I did not respond to the entirety of Fred’s article.
‘Wow, that’s a nice, comfy little perch you’ve set Darwinism on there, now isn’t it?’
I have no idea what your point is here. If you are attempting to refute the assertion that the proof requires conditions which cannot be met, it escapes me.
‘The problem here is that such similarities are as well explained by a common designer as common descent.’
The problem with the common designer argument is it is too simplistic, and therefore unreasonable.
Anything can be explained by just saying ‘God did it!’ When fossils exist which show a particular organism, then later fossils show a similar organism, but in a new form, just say ‘God did it!’ nad that explains everything.
‘Intelligent Design (old-Earth Creationism, if you prefer) starts with empirical observations and argues from there. It cannot and does not claim to support any particular revelation.’
So you are saying someone was there when the universe was created and took pictures?
但是，我的主要论点只是反对人们怀疑自然选择可能导致生物复杂性的不确定性。 达尔文主义并不能解释意识或宇宙的存在。 智能设计和非唯物主义的本体论都是可能的。 但是自然选择也是如此。
Mr. Reed has produced an excellent article. He does at one point state that space is basically empty, except for some hydrogen. Please see astrophysicist Michael Clarage’s “New Views of the Interstellar Medium” at aureon.ca 网站/movies for a differing viewpoint.
I think it important to consider that the theory that random mutations, acted on by natural selection, produces ever more highly organized and complex organisms, has been refuted. It simply wasn’t definitively testable until molecular biology advanced sufficiently. It seems clear by now that this mechanism merely has the power to push organisms more tightly into environmental niches with loss-of-function mutations. Dr. Richard Lenski’s decades long E. coli experiments show this pattern. Dr. Michael Behe’s “Darwin Devolves” and “The Edge of Evolution” explore these matters clearly.
In the article, Mr. Reed uses the eye in an irreducible complexity discussion, stating that it is the changing shape of the lens that is responsible for focusing. I beg to differ, and argue that it is the eye’s oblique muscles, changing the shape of the eyeball, that focus the eye. I refer to William H. Bates, M.D. (born 1860 died 1931) and his book “Perfect Sight Without Glasses” which I just ran across at iblindness.com. Decades ago his “Better Eyesight Without Glasses” helped me better my vision from 20/100 to 20/60. Oddly, after many years of not applying his techniques further, my vision improved to 20/40 and I passed the motor vehicle eye test and they removed the corrective lenses restriction last year.
I laugh recalling when in 8th grade biology class we dissected a cow’s eye, and, upon examining the hard-as-stone lens, my lab partner and I wondered how it could change shape to focus the eye. We decided it must have hardened after the critter died.
At any rate, I searched online a few months ago for definitive, scientifically airtight proof that the lens changes shape to focus the eye, but was unsuccessful. For over thirty years Dr. Bates examined hundreds of thousands of people and experimented on and examined the vision of animals. The first book of his mentioned above contains a fascinating account of the theoretical arguments and photos of his animal experiments. Imagine the danger the widespread adoption the Bates Method would represent to “eyecare” industry profits and one can see why the truth would be suppressed.
You started off strong (“What is is”), then immediately tripped (“God made it”) and face-planted. Ouch. 🙁
I see. You were merely claiming that it is not reasonable to demand absolute proof when that is not possible. I have some degree of sympathy with this view., but it is equally unreasonable to demand absolute proof from ID.
Your problem here is that “It was a coincidence!” explains nothing at all.
This is precisely the sort of unreasonable demand for absolute proof I referenced in the beginning of this reply. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you are saying that photographs from the beginning of time would be the only evidence for intelligent design you would accept as relevant and probative on the question. That is not reasonable.
I recall this column from back in the days when Jerry Pournelle was a voice in the wilderness telling the world you were worth reading. I agreed with that judgment then, and still do.
I could joke that you have overcome your opponents with your accuracy and erudition (only in the style of expression, mind you), but it would be true. Evolutionists have nothing and their mental meanderings reveal them as the charlatans they are. It is all Physics, and I remember quite well an expression I hated hearing from my Physics instructor while in engineering school, “That’s bad Physics.” Evolution is bad Physics, not to mention bad information science, which is what Genetics is. Evolutionists won’t face the consequences of their idiocy, but it keeps coming back and smashing them in the face.
Hopefully, your vision will hold up so you can keep pricking the senses of evolutionary charlatans. Oh, and write other columns as well.
Few questions, please:
What is “God” ?
Which God do you like ?
What does “is” mean ?
What does “does” mean ?
What does “mean” mean ?
Another atheist argument I’ve never understood. How does the fact that different people around the world disagree about the divine nature and/or revelation disprove the existence of God?
‘ I have some degree of sympathy with this view., but it is equally unreasonable to demand absolute proof from ID.’
And I did not do that. Read what I said. I said faith based arguments allow people to believe that which contradicts observable evidence.
‘The problem with the common designer argument is it is too simplistic, and therefore unreasonable.
This is absurd.’
No it is not absurd.
‘Your problem here is that “It was a coincidence!” explains nothing at all.’
I did not say that. Do not confuse me with ‘True Believer’ evolutionists, who believe in evolution with the same absolute faith the Creationists have. Evolution is a theory, and remains a theory; I said that previously and still say it.
‘Another atheist argument I’ve never understood. How does the fact that different people around the world disagree about the divine nature and/or revelation disprove the existence of God?’
It proves belief in a divine creator is based upon vague and imprecise foundations.
Yes, it is. Simplicity is generally considered, for good reason, considered an indication of a better rather than worse explanation. Now, I understand your point about methodological naturalism, but as I said, a working assumption cannot be made into an unquestionable dogma, which is what you propose here, though I don’t think you’re aware of it.
To whom do you refer by this term “Creationist”? If you are referring to Fred, you’re claim that his is an “absolute faith” is totally unwarranted. Quite the contrary, he is notably tentative in his support for ID.
Nonsense. The fact of religious diversity undermines the faith only of those who believe as they do only because everyone they know believes the same. This is increasingly rare nowadays, almost unheard of.
“How does the fact that different people around the world disagree about the divine nature and/or revelation disprove the existence of God?”
I’m agnostic. Nor was I “arguing” anything.
Ignoring all the fine points the difference between evolution & creationism comes down to this —
Creationism asserts a being, power, nature or force (often referred to as “God”) that is infinite & eternal, an entity sitting outside of the “laws” of nature (ie science).
Evolutionists assert the opposite — “Life” is an expression of the so-called “laws of nature “.
As said, I’m agnostic here. You can even do a “cake & eat it too” thing & say, god exists, however “his” creation has manifested itself though those laws of nature. There’s no contradiction here. Even a game of “Patience ” has its rules, even tho’ you’re only playing your self.
K. That is nonetheless an argument very often used by atheists. Hence it is an atheist argument, but I note and appreciate your open-mindedness.
Fred, your intelligence of things seen is well developed and you have a very entertaining way of presenting such truths. Thanks for the many smiles and chuckles.
It is your own arrogance against things unseen, such as God and souls, when they are also extremely obvious (in fact you continually describe them), that needs work. Suggest you spend some time reading pre-Vatican 2 Catholic writings as protestantism (the English speaking world’s religion) is simply pagan rebellion against God’s Church calling itself “Christian.” This is also the proper description of Vatican 2 Catholicism which is an even more insane protest, a rebellion against itself.
‘Simplicity is generally considered, for good reason, considered an indication of a better rather than worse explanation. ‘
Not necessarily true. I suspect you are confusing ‘Simplicity’ with ‘that which is Simplistic’.
Simplicity is considered a better explanation for simple things.
‘To whom do you refer by this term “Creationist”? If you are referring to Fred, you’re claim that his is an “absolute faith” is totally unwarranted. ‘
I see his argument as one-sided. He has an extended diatribe against Evolutionists, but any discussion vs Creationists is brief to non-existent.
‘The fact of religious diversity undermines the faith only of those who believe as they do only because everyone they know believes the same.’
So when people disagree, it means that are all correct? If they hold contradictory beliefs, it means the beliefs are true… I am not going to concede that… at all…
‘You can even do a “cake & eat it too” thing & say, god exists, however “his” creation has manifested itself though those laws of nature. There’s no contradiction here. Even a game of “Patience ” has its rules, even tho’ you’re only playing your self.’
I could talk myself into believing this, if you mean the creator of the universe ‘Nature’ as Edison called it, made this universe and left it to it’s own devices. I also think the universe could exist without necessarily believing this.
I’m envious. But curious. It’s my understanding that Uncle Shemp is dead-set against any Americans relocating with the money they earned and paid taxes on, and he expresses that disfavor by not letting us take any of it offshore.
How, if you don’t mind my asking, did you do it? Cmon – help a nigga out.
My wife and I left 16 years ago but have kept US bank accounts active the entire time. I just used my US funds to purchase what I needed from US suppliers. I tried purchasing equipment from local sources, but found their management and salespeople so inept that I eventually turned to the US where people do know how to chase a sale.
For example, I tried purchasing about $20,000 worth of food processing machinery from several mainland suppliers via email contact and also provided my island phone number. Long story short, I got the first and only reply contact 2 days after all the equipment arrived from the US suppliers I eventually did business with. That includes a 2 week delay due to ocean shipping schedules out of Miami.
In general, I think you’ve got it wrong for an average person. If you want to move a few million off shore, then things might get the attention of TPTsB. Bank to bank wire transfers of $10-20,000 have never been an issue except for the delays that are sometimes involved for various ridiculous reasons.
That is one thing a USian needs to get accustomed to – things in other parts of the world are 不同. That difference can make some people irate and we’ve witnessed examples over the years. Those folks can’t adjust and eventually end up selling out and going back to where they have their comfort level restored. There are a few thousand USians and Canadians on the island so we see a regular flow of the ones that don’t want to assimilate into the local way things are done.
The real trick is to get a local bank account once they discover you’re a foreigner and worse still the dreaded USian. US law makes getting a foreign bank account near impossible in some jurisdictions because the banks don’t want to be burdened by complying with US regulations and reporting. That’s one key question to get resolved early on but it’s also a catch-22 situation. You’ll get all sorts of phony information up until the time you intend to follow through on some of it only to discover you were led astray.
You’ll also want to get legal 居住 wherever you end up. Staying around long term as a tourist isn’t realistic unless you want to just live the life of a beach bum. Without some gov’t paperwork, a bank account or even making any banking transaction might be impossible. The KYC (Know Your Customer) control mechanism initiated by the US is now pretty much world wide.
Vacation where you want to end up, but don’t spend all your time in artificial environments like resorts. Find expats just living their lives and talk to them in their hangout like restaurants and bars that aren’t necessarily the ones most known by the tourists. They’ll clue you in on what’s real and what’s fantasy.
President Clinton has already asked one of those questions.
If life arrived on a meteorite from Mars how did life start on Mars and where did it go?
I guess life is pretty good when WASP Whitey isn’t running things?
No. It is logically necessary that some are right and others are wrong. How again does that disprove the existence of God?
I wonder: Does your argument work in reverse? Because it seems to me that most people the world over believe in a Higher Power of some sort. The major differences concern the 属性 rather than the existence of God.
You’re welcome to write that article of you wish, though it’s not really necessary. It’s not as though we haven’t heard those arguments. The point of this article was to present the anti-Darwin case that is not only ignored but suppressed.
Much appreciated; thank you, sir.
‘No. It is logically necessary that some are right and others are wrong. How again does that disprove the existence of God?’
It means the arguments for God’s existence is vague and imprecise. I could claim the universe was created by a cabal of pixies and challenge you to disprove that. You are familiar with the problems involved in proving a negative? You are asking something unreasonable.
‘The point of this article was to present the anti-Darwin case that is not only ignored but suppressed.’
Suppressed in the venue Fred was discussing it in. Evolutionary theory is suppressed in certain circles also. I am pretty sure there will be extremists advocating for any subject.
Ok, if Genesis 1:27 is right “So God created man in His own image” than methink what would i do as almighty? Building galaxies, suns planets, rocks, atoms, electrons and the whole interior design? O, come on guys, I would be almighty.
Enacting some laws so the whole bunch of things will organize by itself. Bingo. This laws will be “metaphysical” because they didn’t reflect in the things itself. Shurely this involves some compromises and contradictions. Things can’t get bound, than nothing works but they need a frame, else nothing works either. Than i let the whole thing running and take care of some special beauty.
Such as saturn rings and Butterflys. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Fred this was great. I have long thought that the arrogance of the scientific community in general regarding evolution was off-putting to the objective curious-minded. You point out this arrogance in in a deliberate articulate fashion.
This same “we know it all so shut up and think like we tell you to think” attitude, which also dominates the climate and Covid arguments from on high, has been the stock-in-trade of many of our political “leaders” best demonstrated by the progressive Dems.
As we used to say, it all just wears my ass out.
Please keep up the writing.
Agreed that the evolutionary explanation for the wildly diverse abundance of bizarre life on this planet is inadequate.
The only explanation more inadequate is that some Powerful Being invented all of the peculiar and puzzling intricacies of billions of species and then created them all out of Nothing.
My only contribution is that it is a mystery, my son.
The author knows all the science, but he is unable or unwilling to draw the obvious conclusion, which is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
He is unable to take the obvious logical step because he knows that this is as much a moral issue as a scientific issue.
He knows that for all his verbiage, he must still give account to this Creator for every thought and word and deed, and he is extremely squeamish about doing that.
But do it he will, whether in this life, or in the next.
“I have sworn by Myself; the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness and will not return, that unto Me, every knee will bow, and every tongue confess.”
And so in a nutshell, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from iniquity is understanding.”
God(s) is/are an “obvious conclusion” only to those who are imaginative, desperate or insane. “Extremely squeamish” describes those who fear getting through life without the crutch of “god(s)”.
I would plead for a cretinous rather then an ”inteligent” design. Why each of us is surrounded by so many morons? Have they been intentionally created by something, something, eh someone, or have they evolved from angels to cretins just to satisfy Darwinian principles? Can an ”intelligent” designer evolve or is he frozen in a timeframe of absolute entropy?
It’s all clarified here:
You already abjectly failed there. Not worth reading any further.
Pity, though, You are quite intelligent (and funny) when you keep away from what you call “science”.
“……章鱼等生物的伪装，据说是为了防止它们被吃掉。 确实如此。 但许多鱼的颜色很艳丽。 有什么好处？”
And all of human history until its destruction only takes five minutes for the alien to play the whole game while he’s waiting for his pizza to cook.
You just refuted everything!
And those giant skeletons that seem to be unearthed, every now and then ? – Oh, just a thyroid disease that struck – sort a like Corona virus – lol The Smythzonian, NASA, and other science critters haven’t evolved much past Chuck Darwin – either.
It IS tricky — if mind-boggling complexity seems to infer a “designer” then that “designer” needs logically be at the same order of complexity or greater.
And thus we have Occam – don’t multiply entities to avoid the problem explaining an existing unfathomable entity.
–首先是前寒武纪时代，奇迹般地诞生了生命。 没有逻辑上的解释说明生命是如何从非生命中诞生的，这一步是第一个真正的奇迹。 这个时代以灾难告终，蓝藻产生的氧气对当时的生物有毒。 我们希望生活到此结束。
–但事实并非如此。 相反，我们有一个从寒武纪爆炸开始的新纪元。 还有另一个奇迹是在短时间内出生的脊椎动物。 作为自然进化步骤，这也没有多大意义。 这个时代以一种奇怪的方式结束了地球的干燥，以致90％的物种死亡。 生活应该已经在这里结束。
–但是生活并没有就此结束。 我们有恐龙和鸟类等的中生代时代。 正是这个时代以彗星结束。
达尔文主义无法解释的难以置信的奇迹。 在这种模式下，65万bp的彗星并不是异常现象。 这是此模式的一个特征。 确实，进化论没有时代和灾难的地位，这与古生物学记录背道而驰。 但是这种模式确实暗示着还有更多的东西，就像里德先生所说的那样。
一篇不错的文章，但请注意，错误的不仅是进化论。 查看所谓的硬科学，您会发现理论物理学也处于不稳定的境地。 今天所谓的科学是一种可疑的意识形态，并且是技术的相当有效的理论基础，仅此而已。
Yes, and not just cretinous, but also ‘evil design’. I think this every time a mosquito bites me. Why would an almighty and omnipotent creator go to the trouble of making biting insects and all the other nuisances that blight our world? And I am lucky: the mosquitos that bite me merely result in unpleasant and painful sores. For those who have the misfortune to live in certain regions further south, one particular type of mosquito (the anopheles) causes death via malaria. And then there are those parasites that eat poor Indian children’s eyes away from the inside? And on and on with all the nastiness that spoils what could have been something far pleasanter than this vale of tears.
Ah yes, but I’d forgotten: It’s punishment for Adam and Eve’s ‘fall’! So this creator makes mankind as imperfect, then flies in a rage when those imperfections manifest themselves, and punishes all the subsequent generations of this imperfect, botched part of its creation, essentially as spite for its own incompetence. Can you imagine just how evil such a creator would have to be? If the world really is the result of a creator, then I for one detest it.
The existence of what we call “God” is ascertainable through reason and observation. Fred describes what he sees and what he reasons to be evidence of something that you and I call God. Whether or not he calls it God is irrelevant.
He says it is “something.” That is probably a better word for it, because the word “God” is encumbered by the lies, fantasies and traditions of men.
He is being honest. In fact, he is being quite correct, because God is beyond his comprehension, and yours and mine, and beyond even the collective efforts of all men. The existence of God, however, is easy to see. Fred is describing what he sees.
What he is doing is practicing what I came to realize is my “religion.” That is Deism.
What you are doing is quoting the words of men. One does not find God through the words of men.
I quite respected your biography up to this, then I had to take pause –
“BTW – If it were up to me, you and your mother wouldn’t have gotten a penny of public funds. Charity is what the god business is supposed to provide to the ‘needy’ and is why they pay no taxes.”
Frankly I don’t get the whole “god business” , but I do get the not a “penny” bit.
You remind me of that expression, “god forgive me my virtues”. Self righteousness, even when legitimate is less than appealing.
“I will grant you that mass extinction events are relevant to the question of whether there is a designer, and that such events make the existence of a designer less probable than it would be without the mass extinction events.”
Au contraire, the designer may be sending asteroids to kill off unwanted products and provide better conditions for the preferred types. This would imply a mixed designer/evolution scheme which would work better in practice to achieve a desired end result.
The best evidence for evolution is the marine mammals. Unless the designer has designed them to specifically fool evolutionary believers, they appear to be land mammals which have gone to sea. It’s all there, from the fur seal to the whale, they’ve all got plenty of bits left over from their land going ways. Check it out, you’ll be amazed.
If there were such an entity as “the Creator” one would suspect he or she or it must be an idiot savant, capable of making the most remarkable things, from blue whales to republicans, but without a lick of common sense about how to manage these improbable items. It should have called it a day after making the first blue green algae. Everything else is beyond its modest intelligence to effectively supervise.
This topic is for pinheads at the bowling ally.
You mean like the Cardiff giant? Well, “seem” is the operational word here.
There´s a reason “science” includes a thing called “peer review”.
Scientists tend to trust each other – mostly for lack of time – but
疑难杂症 is still the unshakeable foundation; and miscreants who abuse that trust are not given a second chance. Among other things this means that if there was something to it, the drums would have told me 😛
(this not to downplay the very real danger of sclerosis, mind you)
I’ve read numerous stories by Fred on this subject. Its essentially several of them mishmashed together. Bottom line for me is simply this… How do random physical elements “know” enough to come together and furthermore “know” how in the hell to replicate themselves perfectly? Not once or twice but countless billions of times.
The god business is my term for the religious rackets run by the sociopaths that claim they have some calling or special knowledge about some sky god / creator and make a comfortable living in what is pure fraud. That fraud is encouraged by the gov’ts of the world because both the gov’t racket and the religious racket need each other to properly condition the weak minds of their believers to become voluntary slaves.
牧师说上帝使你无知和不道德。 他使我圣洁聪明。 你是绵羊，我是牧者。 你的羊毛属于我。
If you haven’t figured it out, I’m an atheist because I can see past the scam of religion and an anarchist because I see past the scam of government. I’m also a misanthrope because the bulk of the worlds population is neither atheist nor anarchist and I can only account for that because they’re not too bright.
Cofraud19 shows us they will make up whatever their paymasters require. Science has been controlled from the start.
Humans, too, have a dive reflex that regulates breathing. How did we get it on the prehistoric savannas?
When Britain was taken over by Jews they naturally wanted to dechristianize the people. Working with the Masons who also wanted to do away with the Moral LAW, evolution is what they came up with.
It appealed to the degenerates, but also appealed to the pride of the Imperialists, who imagined themselves more evolved than the subjects they ruled around the world.
It has been a successful Jewish/Masonic hoax, and has played a large part in the ongoing collapse of our civilization, or at least what was once a civilization.
I remember going to South Africa in the mid 1970’s with a group. We were surprised to find them all Darwinists, and that Darwinism was taught in all the schools. Our group’s leader told us later it was disappointing, but they have no foundation, the Boer cannot hold.
Lord have mercy. Fred has done gone and set up a model for counting every human anal crinkle on the planet.
Is this some kind of ploy to discredit Unz review?
Evolution relies on too many miracles that must have been done in perfectly time precision. Seems like a religion teetering on being a cult to me. The gods have made “man” do too many wars and modern architect to be legitimate creationists. “Team don’t know” for the win.
Behe for “intelligent laymen”? Are you kidding? Kenneth Miller proved that Behe is a liar, who wants to promote fundamentalist churches. Miller gave a talk in which he used a mouse trap, without a missing piece, like a tie clip, to prove what Darwin had already done with Paley: prove that irreducible complexity is not applicable to biology. Evolutionists explained the retina, the coagulation chain, etc. without BS, as Behe tried.
I have long wondered at the inconsistencies in evolutionary theory and find your article fascinating. I have no doubt complex organisms evolved from simpler ones but the idea that this all occurred through random mutations and survival of the fittest is not credible for many of the reasons you noted so well. I remember learning in biology class that if mutations are induced with radiation to colonies of bacteria that beneficial mutations occur much more likely than harmful ones than what chance would predict. How can this be explained with the current theory? Furthermore, even the most simple organism capable of reproduction is enormously complex. The idea of that organism coming into being by chance is zero. Your analogy of monkeys on typewriters producing novels is spot on. There are forces that govern evolution that are not understood.
Inexplicable extinctions, including mass extinctions are also curious in this regard. I would think that with current efforts to rehabilitate panda populations that they would be reproducing like sub-Saharan africans. But they are not. It’s as if they have lost the reproductive drive (and maybe we are too). Mass extinctions occur at regular intervals and some cannot be explained. I question if species, maybe even class order phyla etc may have lifespans much as an individual can expect to live 70 or so years, a typical species may consider 50 million years a good run. Maybe the entire species turns homosexual or becomes more interested in running triathlons than reproducing. None of this fits with the current theory.
Evolutionary theory as it stands is a framework of the truth with many details yet unknown and unexplainable. The evolutionary scientist you describe are not like the professors I had. My professors had not reservations about admitting that they did not have all the answers. But we are on the right trail.
Well, IF an idiot, it certainly was an idiot savant, IOW a genius of sorts. But in whose eyes you would be the real idiot, because you couldn’t do what he did. After all, his crazy inventions work!
Down Under – speak in layman’s terms or get outta town – I only made to the 14th grade. there are sooo many mounds and giant skeletons under the US and hidden in the Smythzonian , that date 8000 yrs ago , it’s not a secret – just another scientific cover up – like 80% of our history. Our newspapers from the 1800s , up to 1940 had detailed accounts of new fines – then the MSM was told to cover Darwin – so us normal folks would continue to eat up all the Chuck Darwin BS we could handle – much easier to have a solid long term lie – than to hve a Evolutionary renaissance. Thanks
You appear to be desperately uncomfortable with your own role and importance in this Universe. If you don’t have a definitive answer, you turn to someone who can assure you that indeed you are a special snowflake and very important to Eternity.
By what right do you demand these answers Freddie? Why can’t you just accept that very soon you will be disintegrated and forgotten forever. The absolute best that you can hope for is a step daughter who may one day refer to you in passing (in espanol), “Oh yeah, my step dad once mentioned that he liked mayonnaise too.”
Nothing you’ve ever done or said has the least bit of cosmic importance. Your value then is arguably less than a maggot that may at least transmogrify into a fly. And you can’t accept this can you Fred? Your puffed up ego won’t take it.
Sad. But this is how mythology starts.
There’s a reason why scientists continue to search for the answer to the question of the origin of life – because it remains unknown. That fact seems perplexing to Reed and he could have saved a lot of time just writing it out like that.
“I don’t know how life started and dammit I am special! I deserve to know and this man in a dress over here says the Sky Fairy did it. So there! All you retards know nothing, I have the answers.”
How can I get my time wasted stamped and validated here?
Goodness gracious the author sounds like an idiot. I’d like to hear an exquistion on bovine leutinizing hormone releasing hormone (BLHRH) rather than a masturbatory list of topics.
“A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling”
Ludwik Fleck was not Polish. He was Jewish. Just like a Nigerian living in Sweden is not Swedish but is a Nigerian. Anyway I don’t have time to read the whole article as I am behind on my reading. Currently I am trying to finish “The Life of Greece” by Will Durant. Itz only about 700 pages but the type is small.
And her evil twin keeps destroying it.
In the interests of precision, one notes that “Evolution” is an established fact. Animal and plant breeders do it all the time!
The real issue is with the evolution of species, and the origin of life. That’s why Darwin did not title his book “evolution” but “On the origin of species.”
And as regards things like sexual selection, well, according the theory of natural selection, the process is a blind local optimization system, and of course there will be instabilities. So women with large breasts have some advantages, and some disadvantages, and there is no convergence to a stable mean. Why should there be? I mean, single-celled lifeforms have some advantages over multi-celled ones, and vice versa, and after all this time we still have plenty of both…
It is not possible to reason with
The Ingersoll quotation (which I hadn’t seen before) is one of those rather trite and entirely sophomoric diatribes that credulous, idealist or needy people think represents wisdom. It does no such thing. I too am an atheist, and like you, entertain the profoundest suspicion of modern forms of governance, together with a vituperative hatred of the shallow, deracinated, materialism of the modern West.
I do, however, also understand that – as in ‘German ethical socialism’ of the 1930s and early ’40s – a sound basis for human societies must anchor itself in the natural world. What this means in practical terms is that hierarchy is inevitable. Or in other words, Kings will happen! The traditionalist societies – those of ‘throne and altar’ in fact – functioned within this hierarchical structure precisely because with privilege came responsibility.
Perhaps the final death knell of Traditionalism in Britain came with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 (these laws imposed a tariff on imported wheat, protecting British farmers from foreign competition). The world of Traditionalism was mortally wounded, and Modernism was just waiting in the wings for its chance to achieve its aim of installing the merchant on those ruins of throne and altar. This is the world we are now condemned to inhabit. Throne and altar, for all its faults, was an infinitely preferable system.
Four years before the repeal of the Corn Laws, the then thirty-eight year old Benjamin Disraeli was sympathetic to some of the aims of Chartism, and argued for an alliance between the landed aristocracy and the working class against the increasing power of the merchants and new industrialists in the middle class. Disraeli stated, in a letter to Sir William Miles of 11 June 1860, that “from my earliest years, my sympathies had been with the landed interest of England”. This was because of the role the aristocracy had traditionally played in maintaining the paternalistic society characteristic of Traditionalism. Speaking against repeal in 1842, Disraeli eloquently summed up this aristocratic paternalism in a speech in the House of Commons:
“什么时候 [在1066中] 征服者开垦了部分土地，实行封建制度，他对接受者说：“你将拥有这块土地，但你应该为它做点什么：你应该养活穷人； 你将资助教会； 战时保卫国土； 你要为穷人伸张正义，维护真理。”
“It is all very well to talk of the barbarities of the feudal system, and to tell us that in those days when it flourished a great variety of gross and grotesque circumstances and great miseries occurred but these were not the result of the feudal system; they were the result of the barbarism of the age. They existed not from the feudal system, but in spite of the feudal system. The principle of the feudal system, the principle which was practically operated upon, was the noblest principle, the grandest, the most magnificent and benevolent that was ever conceived by sage, or ever practised by patriot.=
The ‘Modernist’ phenomenon can first be discerned in England, during the reign of Elizabeth I (1558 – 1603), and it gathered pace as the 17th-century progressed, culminating in the English Civil War of 1642-51. Writing of these initially English political divisions in his A Defence of Conservatism, 1927, political philosopher Anthony Ludovici identified their origins as ultimately arising from the growing bifurcation of rural and urban life in England:
“因此，在大起义时期，这并不令人惊讶 [英国内战或“克伦威尔革命”] 第一次全国大分裂发生了，在一个重大的政治问题上，保守党-农村-农业党应该发现自己在保护和捍卫王室，反对辉格-城市-商业贸易党。 诚然，保守党和辉格党作为该州两个主要政党的名称尚不为人所知。 但在为国王的人而战的两方 [查尔斯一世]，这些政党的气质和目的已经很明显了。
正如我所指出的，查理一世可能是第一任保守党，也是最伟大的保守党。 他坚信要确保人民的人身自由和幸福。 他不仅保护人民免受雇主在贸易和制造业中的肆虐，还保护人民免受强大和大国的压迫。
The growing primacy of money inevitably led to it replacing the traditional ways by which a man’s worth might be measured, which is to say by the cardinal virtues of goodness, truth, duty, honour and self-sacrifice. A man’s ‘worth’ was now instead considered to be no more than the balance he could boast of at the bank. Having first reared its ugly head in seventeenth century England, this same phenomenon of Modernism would convulse first France, in 1789, and then spread like wildfire over 19th century Europe. These revolutions have shaped the modern world, and although ostensibly in the name of “the people,” they can be discerned as attempts to empower the merchant on the ruins of throne and altar. Or as Oswald Spengler noted:
“经济趋势在本世纪典型的隐秘革命中成为最重要的革命，这种革命被称为民主，并通过群众投票或设路障而周期性地表现出来。 在英格兰，曼彻斯特学派的自由贸易学说被工会用在称为“劳工”的商品形式上，并最终在马克思和恩格斯的《共产党宣言》中得到了理论上的表述。 这样就完成了对政治的政治化，即通过经济学，国家对金融机构的对位。=
Kings I approve of. Altars? Not so much. Certainly not those promoting the magical powers of a Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago.
I was going to make the same point. The idea of “evolution” is about what happens after the beginning of life. However, an honest scientist should never accept the idea of “evolution”, which implies some valued progression.
The title of Darwin’s theoretical breakthrough was, “The Origin of the Species (By Natural Selection)”. It was concerned with the variety of species and their obvious physical relationships.
Having said all that, I love Fred Reed’s essay. The problems with “Evolutionists” (unaware apparently that their own chosen descriptive is at variance with the theory) has long been apparent to me. I took a course produced by the biology department at the University of Illinois back in about 1967 called “The Theory of Evolution”, expecting to find a scientific discussion. It turned out to be a series of lectures that argued against all the perceived objections (mostly religious) to the theory and not very much on how the science applied. That seems to be the defensive posture of the discipline in many areas.
My religion does not require that I accept ID or any other explanation about the variety of the species. “Evolution” has been declared compatible with the biblical narrative that an omniscient, all powerful and all-loving God breathed life into a single human being, from whom we derive all human beings. However, that doesn’t mean that we have to accept Darwin’s theory in the face of the knowledge we have developed in all fields since the middle of the 1850’s.
I especially love the example of metamorphosis, which came to me one beautiful late summer afternoon in a forest on a Mississippi River bluff. Several species of butterflies were floating on the breeze and busily visiting the incredible variety of wildflowers. It occurred to me that these creatures and all the others around me couldn’t be explained by the cold, solipsistic ideas of nineteenth century Englishmen.
Catch a butterfly some day and study the structure of its wings. Some species have perfectly drawn eyes among the other amazingly painted designs. That perfection is in addition to the impossibility of an evolutionary derivative of the metamorphosis from a sluglike earlier life. Ask the applied evolution theorists about it and their answer is simple, “This is a promising field for further study.” LOL
Well it came close; it was an attempted disquisition on the non-inhibition of bovine excretion releasing hormone, or something.
good article. discussion of origins always gets mired in the chemical soup hypothesis and irreducible complexity vs directed design. steven meyer at one time reviewed the clay origin hypothesis of ag cairns-smith, which despite the clay reference is not religious, but tossed out with the chemical bath water since dna is preeminent and no pathway from clay to dna was apparent.
i think that’s unfortunate. i think cairns-smith’s hypothesis has a lot of life in it.
it grounds itself in simple processes that are all around us even now.
it deals with the problem of, if life is probable (ie not monkeys typing), why are there not multiple spontaneous genesis events.
it means the earth itself is alive in a sense. and that life extends far deeper to the core than previously thought.
it allows for forms of life we do not recognize as life.
it bridges rupert sheldrakes morphic field analysis of crystals to biological life, showing a continuum.
rupert sheldrake has a lot to say about dna and how little it actually matters, which i believe dispenses steven meyers argument against cairns-smith.
with regards genesis of consciousness, sheldrake has some ideas dispensing with fixating on finding it in the brain. recent developments, such as in philosophy with thomas nagel seem to lay out consciousness as present in a continuum from subatomic particles to us and onwards to stellar bodies such as the sun. so much for descartes.
sheldrake talks about the presence of the past. his theory of morphic fields is compelling and makes predictions that can and have been confirmed. but the elephant in sheldrake’s room remains, unacknowledged, in spite of his theism. the presence of the future.
dinosaurs too big to be real, and the iridium layer buried. someone needs to look at catastrophism, punctuated equilibrium and electric universe theory on gravity as a function of electrical stress on dielectrics.
The Ingersoll quote represents the down to earth truth about government and religion. You can’t possibly deny a single line in it. I’d like to see you try. Please – try.
It so precisely encapsulates that truth that it is one of my favorite quotes and I’ve collected nearly 3000.
That hierarchical structures emerge is understandable when someone in the tribe shows a demonstrable skill in providing for that tribe. Today, no such demonstrable skill is evident and certainly none is sought after via the selection process that passes for democratic elections. What we have today is a mafia that pretends to be a government where a vice president can illegally enrich his family and threaten another head of state and get elected president. If this is the king system you advocate, you can have it. I want no part of it.
The closest thing to a government that is at least somewhat responsive to its people is probably Switzerland. Local gov’t decides most things and the central gov’t largely respects their wishes. The US Fed Gov is a soft military dictatorship and has been so since Eisenhower warned the nation.
Darwinism is the most evil creation.
Out of fallen mans mind
It is a tool, used right now.
Change your gender, its not fixed, they say.
Or believe virus theory, and let us change the world, make the great reset.
Darwinism makes all these things possible, because no things are fixed in a creation.
Family, gender, biology, all can be changed, to what we now are pushed to; the great beehive.
Scientifically, its a fraud.
Not one single evidence.
Only change whitin tight limits; the dog.
And then mr Reed wants to feel free and roam about.
Cant grow up and face it.
Read S:t Pauls epistle, ch 1.
If evolution is false, which it is, then there is only creation.
And for all you who complain about creation, there is the fall of man, die Sündenfall.
Made creation imperfect.
Yes it is. That’s all it’s about. It’s not about anything else. It’s not about the origins of the universe. It’s not even about the origins of life. It’s only about how life diversifies, not how it began.
Evolution explains the diverse forms of life we find today and discover from the past. It doesn’t seek to explain anything because theories don’t seek; people do. Theories explain.
The theory of evolution doesn’t begin with the Big Bang. It doesn’t even begin with abiogenesis. It begins after life first appeared.
The argument you made isn’t against evolution at all; it’s against a muddled jumble of things you slapped together. You successfully refuted the theory you made, but that theory wasn’t evolution.
(I was going to suggest the laity STFU but couldn´t muster the heart 😛 )
– But as unAmerican my views amount to little anyways (and “no”kangaroos does not mean the nether regions)
Human evolution is a problem its own – shitty record and a political minefield;
however I am of good cheer that sequencing will open a lot of doors.
I remember a professor still jumping up and down at the information that could have been gleaned from the “pickled Celt”(his words) of Hallstatt 1734 (the good people gave the “smoked devil” a Christian burial).
But do you not have the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act?
iirc you must not look at anything remotely human older than 200 yrs even if it definitely is nobody´s ancestor, under penalty of Nanazboho.
You do realize you are the World´s laughingstock, don´t you.
Its a theory, and unproven scientifically.
Therefore its a fraud.
Not Big bang, but the primordial soup.
Evolution in Darwinian sense doesnt exist.
Only variations within tight limits; the dog is an example.
God gave us this, to our benfit.
Otherwise, and Fred is right in assessing, that plausibility has become a fact.
Intercommunication such as between you and RB is the main reason I come to UR. You both make great points and I’m fascinated by the insights you provided here. More often than not the comments are more rewarding than the articles themselves.
It’s true, Doc, that evolution is observed in the short term, and Fred himself says this. What is nutty and impossible is the evolution from simple forms billions of years ago to the complexity Fred describes. Long term evolution is a crock of shit — and it is indeed posited as a form of evolution, the most important form — and every evolutionist like you believes in it.
An analogy: Newtonian physics vs. Einsteinian physics. The former is observable and works in any situation in which we humans exist. We have used it go go to the moon and to send robots to the planets. The latter, the relativistic, is only applicable to very large spaces and/or very high velocities and extreme cases in which we ourselves do not exist or act.
That is only an analogy. Relativity is far more valid and demonstrable that your long-term evolution of life on Earth. And what you support is indeed EVOLUTION of life itself, not just the short-term variations that we can observe ourselves.
A little example of real, short-term evolution: I remember reading in school about a species of moth in the British Isles. It was white or light colored, and it spent much of its time on the bark of light-colored trees. Then, coal-fired factories were built next to the forest. Soot gradually turned the trees dark, and the moths gradually became dark themselves.
It’s simple, short term evolution none of us are arguing about: As the bark of those trees got darker, light-colored moths got eaten by predators, while darker variations were not and went on to reproduce.
From my own experience: There at two species of squirrel that live on the two rims of the Grand Canyon. I have hiked to the bottom three times. It is a mile deep and several miles across, but it began millions of years ago with a river running through and no canyon. Over that course of time, one species of squirrel separated into two. The canyon gradually formed as the river dug deeper, and the squirrels on both sides got separated and developed distinct characteristics.
None of these short-term, “Newtonian” if you will, examples have anything at all to do with the origin, variety and complexity of life on Earth, and certainly none of this has anything to do with how we came into existence. The scale is simply too massive the even be encompassed by the entire known history of the universe.
Where does dirt come from? Here’s my take.
As all water is the same water, most dirt is recycled (exception being magma and ash) and everything becomes dirt eventually. Vegetable matter is converted into fresh dirt either through composting or digestion -> burial. Sediment washed into the sea becomes sea floor which by dint of geological action becomes land one more. And that dirt moves around – dust and sand travel across oceans carried by the wind. There’s a reason most archaeological sites are called “digs.” The dust you vacuum up in your house is mostly your own dead skin cells. And so on.
As to the conjecture that the earth’s mass is increasing, I’m initially skeptical (where is the mass coming from?) but am happy to listen to any theories.
The Panspermia hypothesis was a little speculation by Svante Arrhenius
(a classic case of “old Nobelists´ syndrome”). No one but Hoyle&Wickramasinghe
(= always the astrophysicists) takes it seriously.
Why Mars couldn´t hold a decent atmosphere is reasonably well understood:
– no plate tectonics i.e. no gas recycling (for greenhouse effect)
– no liquid outer core i.e. no protective magnetic field
– size matters i.e. Mars is, in the southern summer, still bleeding water
Anyways outsourcing the problem does not solve it 😀
什么？ 我们之所以能够这样做，是因为我们的大脑已经进化为能够处理复杂的选择问题。 这称为计划未来的能力。 我之所以选择拯救我的兄弟，是因为我有更多的机会与他一起在背包里生存。
这就是为什么我讨厌神创论者。 他们是典型的智商低下的简单人物，他们对世界不屑一顾，然后说道：“我无法解释这件事，必须是魔幻天空仙子的作品。” 就在用石头敲打聪明的人，去实际地看问题，研究问题，仔细分析问题之后得出结论，这就是圣经的重击者所不喜欢的。
Aug 15, 2019 Try Believing in Evolution After This!
Is evolution scientific? Can it be proven? This isn’t your typical dry treatise on the subject. It is flavored with lots of humor, beautiful photography, and good old fashioned common sense. Evolutionary believers themselves will show you how unintelligent this theory really is.
Oh great. Wizdumb from Fred Reed.
The guy has gone soft.
Here’s something stupid that Reed and the rest of you never get:
He suggests that Darwinists automatically think you are a Creationists if you question them.
Just like conservatives think you are a “liberal” if you question them.
Or for that matter, liberals think you’re automatically a conservative if you question them.
It’s like Caitlin Johnstone said:
The third alternative (much less the fourth or fifth) to most issues seems an alternative a bridge too far for little minds to navigate.
You are very welcome sir! Thanks for your kind words.
Fred could have saved himself, and his readers, a lot of time simply by posting this video conversation between three academics – a biologist, a philosopher and a mathematician, who lay it on the line – Darwinian theory simply does not explain the complexity of cells, much less the origins of life.
dawkins and his ilk are compressed hypocritical little men angry at God.
You know, one of the great things about the hard sciences is that when a better idea appears, such as e.g. “action at a distance” (i.e., Newton’s concept of gravity), it’s generally accepted. What you’re suggesting is that schools take time away from exploring a good, fruitful idea (biological evolution) to explore manifestly stupid, unproductive, and impotent ideas (even as allegory) like this :
I guess in our country, an infected parent can still pass on this kind of brain damage to its offspring (epigenetically, of course), but it’s a relief know that the infection hasn’t taken over the school system yet.
By the way, the “First Critter” as you call it is usually referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA for short).
It ain’t the Archipelago but it’s better than us rubes drowning in ignorance of how Ginger and Maryann’s beard will continue to grow until morale improves.
Gawwwd bless Cap’n Fred and the courage of his fearless crew.
I am convinced that there is no saving of the US, seeing supposedly intellectuals trying to disprove evolution. How pathetic!
it is to mans credit that this small wilted creature attempts to contemplate the possibilities of Creation.
unfortunately all he possesses in abundance is ignorance.
This scientist and computer coder produced this and he comments on his discoveries in the creation.
You know, one of the great things about the hard sciences is that, when a better idea appears, such as e.g. “action at a distance” (i.e., Newton’s concept of gravity), it is generally accepted. But what you’re suggesting is that schools take time away from exploring a good, fruitful idea (biological evolution) to explore manifestly stupid, unproductive, and impotent ideas (even when taken as allegory) like this :
I guess in our country, an infected parent can still pass on this kind of brain damage to its offspring (epigenetically, of course), but it’s a relief know that the infection hasn’t taken over the school system yet.
By the way, the “First Critter” as you call it is usually referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA for short).
Creationism and political correctness come from the same root, and it is not “postmodernism”.
Say about the Little British what you will, but they knew damn well why they wanted to be rid of the Puritans.
The problem with the Alien theory is that it simply pushes the question back one step. That is, how did the Alien come into existence? A second Alien behind the first one? etc.
I agree on Rupert Sheldrake. He is working in this area with a scientific approach. That is, looking for evidence.
Why must you piss on the parade of delusional beliefs? Why can’t I remain a simpleton in the fashion of a Muslim who believes in butchering his own daughter for spreading legs to someone other than a close relative? Why can’t I swing a chicken over my head to avert evil? Why can’t I make a sign of cross when encountering a black cat? Why can’t I pray to a cow instead of making beef stew out of it? What’s wrong with the turban on my head to honor the invisible entity in the blue sky? Why can’t I wear a mask to protect an insect from getting killed by entering my lungs? Why can’t I feed my loved ones upon their death to the buzzards or even chopping them up into small pieces so the poor birds won’t choke on it?
Caitlin is very perceptive …
(though she explicitly cannot abide my sort … eh, parlerons d´autre chose 😛 )
But here we are dealing with people unable to use scientific but refusing to use religious terms, willfully distorting the meaning of “theory”, “model” and what have you, trying to prove something but refusing to say what. Deconstructionists … termites.
All science deniers are the same, be they BLM, NOW, the Behe Bunch or the Raelians.
I agree. The scientific method is at its essence systematic and thorough observations. And a willingness to adapt one’s theory to match those observations. The statistical analyses and specialized equipment are merely tools for that process. Some scientists are dedicated to finding the facts, and follow those principles. Some, unfortunately, are susceptible to human emotions and extraneous pressures. The one thing that bothers me about Fred’s informative article is his sneering attitude toward those who don’t buy conclusions which he acknowledges he can’t prove.
There is one thing that has clearly evolved, morphed, and transcended into other developed forms(to suit nefarious means) and that is “God”. Always changing, all wise, all powerful, all knowing, and always needs money, and in that regard the theory of evolution becomes expensive – so god must change.
If I get Rosie right, it is a sexual dimorphism 😛
The (female) true believer holds the (male) scientist guilty of wanting to be like God –
peccatum originale originans.
This is a malicious distortion of the actual historical account Gen.3 though I will not disavow Nietzsche (“If there were a god, how could I stand not being god myself?”)
To the (male) scientist the (female) true believer is like unto the bad servant Luke 19:12-24
who, by burying his one talent, is derelict in his duty to his lord (and will reap his desserts)
Never the twain shall meet 😀
You mean i have to watch a 60 minute video to get the information of this article i can read in 5 or so :-).
Where is the evolution? If they change colour that short time than this change must be implemented in that species before, and in fact it was. At this very point you can praise the wisdom of the creator(s) much more than the primitive mutation->selection assume of this theory.
I felt during middle school that something was fishy with evolution theory because the same science teacheress also bullied me into believing that the girls in our class where just as strong and fast as the boys, which wasn’t true. Still, she bickered. So, for me at least, biology seemed to be an ideological minefield. Also, Christianity was still in the curriculum, so we also had to learn that love, not sex, is the goal of courtship. We teenagers were confused. For example, it was evident that evolutionary theory would justify genocide and eugenics (selective breeding) which is a thought crime in Germany because we lost two World Wars. Our teacheress thus instructed us to only ever apply evolution to animals and plants. Probably because those can’t talk back to us on how full of make-belief we are. Now that I am more beread, I came to the cynical conclusion that I – and you – simply got to survive. Our schools will either conclude that we were fit or that we were intelligent by design. So just hang in there. It will be glorious!
LOL! Pizza is the universal in computer gaming.
Well, that’s the alien’s problem isn’t it?
Don’t ask me! Perhaps its a case of the designer fiddling with his more or less evolutionary product? The Aquatic Ape Theory suggests that human antecedents went through an aquatic period, which is also responsible for body fat, hairlessness etc. However Big Evolution doesn’t like this theory.
Without challenging the logic of your evolutionary argument, it may well be noted that the now commonly accepted Alvarez explanation is not as compelling as you suggest. For instance, that iridium-enriched layer consists almost entirely of melted spherules and shocked quartz crystals showing evidence of having accreted like hailstones — of having condensed from vaporized rock.
Again, Cretaceous fossils have been found in the geologic layers above the iridium, that were laid down after the event. Princeton-University geologists also maintain the Chixculub explosion took place 300,000 years before the end-Cretaceous extinction.
The Alvarez school has had to jump through hoops to explain the structure of the crater, with its central peak and multiple concentric rings extending out to some 150 km from the center. Nor have they found any actual remains of the presumed asteroid or comet. (Compare to the rich silver deposit in Sudbury, Canada). Thus they postulate the body punched a hole right through the Earth’s crust and unleashed a splash effect that produced unlikely symmetric rings in the crater
As RoatanBill points out, dinosaurs are much too heavy to survive in Earth’s current gravity. so it’s quite possible they were wiped out in a cosmological catastrophe of an electrical kind, which might well change the gravitational parameters of the Earth, according to some plasma physicists and cosmologists.
If evolutionary theory is a mess, perhaps it’s because so is a lot of other science.
It’s no use mister, it’s aliens all the way down.
Unfortunately it was published in The Unz Review and, given the fact only idiots believe in the theory of evolution and idiots don’t read The Unz Review, not many people are going to read it.
The bottom line is that Evolution Theory, together with global warming, CO2 pollution, and the Coronavirus pandemic are just manifestations of the same ideological BS that has nothing to do with science.
I agree with your comment and consider it very good, except
Meteors do not ever strike anything as they are incorporeal. A meteor is defined as “Any visual phenomenon in the sky.”
Where you used “meteor” you actually meant asteroid. In science words matter; in nonsense, e.g. religion, they don’t.
If there was a designer he certainly wasn’t intelligent
First, I think you’re a good writer—thanks for posting this piece.
Second, you answered a question I’ve had for a while:
How could a brilliant geologist I worked with have had doubts about evolutionary theory?
(Alas, I only heard of his doubts from a friend, and didn’t have a chance to ask him before he died.)
Your piece, I think, explains it: someone who has evolved beyond binary reasoning must question the orthodox explanation of, well, existence. To his mind, The Theory didn’t hold water.
In a way, I suppose, Darwin was right, but it’s not about physical evolution (or not _just_ about it), but the change from the bot fly-mosquito-dance to another level of “consciousness”, for lack of a better word. Perhaps it is too much for our (unevolved?) meat-brain to deal with, and why some hippies lost their marbles on lsd—they got too close to the answer.
So, thanks for walking us to the edge. Some questions must remain unanswered.
Fred claims that,
but that is not true; that’s all it’s about.
He also claims that.
but that is also not true; evolution is only about how life diversifies.
Fred claims that,
but that is false; the theory of evolution doesn’t begin with the Big Bang theory and has nothing to do with it.
You posted that,
but that neither supports Fred’s claims nor addresses mine.
Neither the Big Bang nor the “primordial soup” are hypothesized or presupposed in the Theory of Evolution.
Good point, and I agree.
However, is it not possible, if the trees remain dark for ever after, and the occasional white moths that appear get eaten, that the code sequences that produce whiteness will become more and more rare, to the point that it could eventually drop completely out of the DNA and never appear again?
My Grand Canyon example is better, because it occurred over millions of years. Note though that the two resulting different kinds of squirrel are still both squirrels.
Remember, I agree with you, and you are only quibbling about what should be called evolution. Should dog breeding be called short-term evolution? That is analogous, and now you have made me think that none of this short term stuff is really any kind of evolution after all.
So true. You and I broadly agree. The scam of ‘democracy’ now prevails, and it is little more than the corruption of public governance by private wealth. Or in other words, as soon as the merchant has more money than the king, the merchant will be the 事实上的 ruler and the people will begin to suffer. I really don’t think you read my (rather lengthy) reply carefully enough. The fault lies with the unbridled triumph of mercantilism.
Traditionalism (i.e. governance mostly by kings) enshrined the essential connectivity and mutual responsibility between the throne and the poorest serf. I mentioned that under this system, privilege (and thus power) entailed responsibility. The French phrase 贵族有义务 is often used to describe it. I also described it as paternalism. The highest discharged a duty to protect and care for the lowest, as I hope I demonstrated. Thus, always providing that this system worked well (and of course it didn’t always do so) what emerged were societies that were functioning, coherent, Hobbesian ‘organic societies’ with harmony in all their parts (as Oswald Spengler memorably put it). Under Modernism – which is the primacy of money and thus materialism – what we see are societies that resemble a body afflicted with cancer, where cells begin to attack one another until it dies.
换句话说，在社会凝聚力范围内巩固王位的古老链接被打破了。 当今的统治寡头们对“问题”的责任感为零。 相反，他们无处不在地剥削他们，当他们被债务，沮丧和绝望所取代时，他们会毫不在意。 的确，他们的专制政权实际上是在普通百姓中寻求这些结果的，因为寡头们兜售一种观念，即人们必须被说服去购买不需要使用他们没有的钱而不需要的旧货，这是他们所为。 我再说一遍：今天一个人的身价是用他的狡猾的小地位象征来衡量的。 请注意我的最后一句话，但只有一句话：“兜售”，“垃圾”和“他们没有钱”。 这些是现代主义的本质。 它们概括了重商主义和物质主义的胜利。 寡头剥削群众的这三种途径为扎克伯格，盖茨，贝佐斯，辛格，阿德尔森和多尔西夫妇提供了丰富而肥沃的土地。
The peddling aspect is of course today’s world of wall-to-wall advertising, whose purpose is to lure the gullible masses into buying ‘stuff’ they don’t really need, because they are seduced by the siren voice of advertising into believing that they do actually need these things in order to display their own sense of status. ‘Junk’ is the sum of all the tawdry garbage that is made by the multinationals that supply this manufactured and entirely false sense of need. And as for ‘money they don’t have’, this is of course the despicable modern system of usurious credit that so often leads to despair. And yet this very despair represents the fruits of the oligarchy’s endeavours. The upward flow of money from labour to capital is what keeps these oligarchs where they are.
This is a million miles away from Traditionalism and its monarchs. In fact, it is its diametric opposite. Yet of course, it is too easy to swallow the propaganda, whereby the triumphant merchant seeks to disparage all that he has carefully and brutally laid waste to. So we are relentlessly instructed that ‘kings were all tyrants’ and ‘aristocrats were foppish and exploitative wastrels’. Any careful reading of history (or what remains of it after the censors have had their way) teaches us otherwise. I rest my case!
[sounds of flagellation in background]
I did it again. Kindly look up #167 😉
But all this doesn’t explain why we all contain some of Caesar’s genes. Is dissolution the arse-end of evolution?
– It is true there is a layer of uppermost Cretaceous foraminifera inside the Chicxulub, between the impactite and the barren limestone; it will be hard to prove they are not dislocated paulo post i.e. swept in (in which case the bedding should be graded, a point I haven´t seen addressed)
– Quartzes can not very well be “shocked” (solid-state translation twinning) AND formed from vapor (in which case we´d have us tridymite and cristobalite). Nothing to see here.
– The “Shiva crater” on the Mumbai shelf is, as per Chr. Koeberl, an artefact (happens with things under a mile of water and a mile of sediment) which is a pity as it would put the three enigmata hot spots (Réunion), flood basalts (Deccan) and impact in one time and place. We´ll see 😉
– Impactors above a certain size evaporate – do not expect to find a piece (the Barringer crater – a skeeter fart – roughly equals the biggest nukes ever built because everything bigger would poof out of the atmosphere without doing additional damage; and there are still pieces (“Canon Diablo”)).
– In Sudbury the impactor went clean through a then thinner crust* and acted out in the mantle (I will not bore you with the details, but the gabbronorite (Px = hypersthene) means fast, deep and complete – shock – melting). Cosmic origin of Ni, Co and PGE (but not the Cu and Zn; sorry, no silver to speak of) has been hypothesized since before Alvarez&Alvarez but is not really settled.
* All liquid-magmatic Cu-Ni deposits are pre-phanerozoic; the single exception is Noril´sk-Talnakh and its continuations on the Taimyr peninsula (= the reason those pesky Russians are sitting on half our palladium), middle Triassic.
It does however lie on a straight line extension of a contemporaneous row of seven craters from North Dakota to Northern France that include the Manicouagan
(I do not wish to be quoted 😛 ).
– Earth captures ~200t of dirt per day and loses ~160t of atmosphere; you might say Gaia gobbles meteorites and passes gas but keeps her weight at least since the Cambrian. Discernible are a ~tenfold increase in meteorite flow 466Ma ago (“Icarus event”, L type chondrites) and a tripling at 269Ma (respectively ~20Ma before the two biggest mass extinctions, Chicxulub was “also ran”) but this is not yet settled.
It´s not science that is a mess 😀
I’m an anarchist. In my life time there hasn’t been a Fed Gov that worked for the people. It all went south in 1913 when funny money replaced real money. That signaled the end of the USA eventually. Eventually is within sight now.
I’ve long held that advertising is professional lying. I’d make current push advertising illegal, replacing it with only pull advertising. If you want to know which widget to buy, find the widget manufacturers and hit their web sites. I’d also make any mention of free this or free that illegal as it’s clearly fraud.
With push advertising gone and the fraud of free shipping eliminated, the revenue streams for Google, Facebook, etc dry up over night and Amazon gets severely wounded. With the media now without the ability to fund their activities from ad revenues they’d have to get their money from the willing participation of their readers / viewers.
We live in an environment where fraud rules everything by law. The legal system (aka government) has craftily created this for their own purposes. The only possibility of a return to something resembling legitimate government is the elimination of the Fed Gov, the end of the United States of America.
read Setterfield, setterfield.org
Thank you, Fred Free. Very funny and useful essay, it helps to understand a lot of things about scientists and evolutionnists. I have translated it in french, and it will soon be enterely on line with this title:
Stephen C. Meyer, Douglas Axe, Chuck Darwin et moi, trois obusiers à l’assaut de l’évolution, avec un pistolet à bouchon.
Very well said. I think – or at least I hope – that you and I have more or less come around to agreeing that the ills that make today’s world what it is are entirely the product of this triumph of the counting-house over the palace. I am not an anarchist, but I have to say that I have a great deal more respect for such a stance than I have for the hegemonic Modernism that today so blights the world, in the wake of its final triumph (which is to say on the 8th of May 1945 – surely the blackest day in the history of the White race).
I have, for example, far higher regard for Mikhail Bakunin than I have for his one time comrade, who eventually became his arch-enemy, Karl Marx. Both Bakunin and Marx were prominent members of the International Working Men’s Association during the 1870s, but Bakunin later became an implacable opponent of Marxism, and especially so regarding what Marx called ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’. Bakunin correctly predicted that Marxist regimes would become one-party dictatorships which ruled 已治疗 无产阶级，而不是真正地奉行统治 by the proletariat.
Whereas Marx argued for the use of the state to bring about socialism, Bakunin wanted the state to be replaced by federations of self-governing workplaces and communes.
Bakunin was, unsurprisingly, a Russian aristocrat by birth.
I think where you and I differ at the most basic level is that I believe the correct response to anyone getting up and stating – “I want to be your leader” is to shoot him dead.
I misspoke, sorry. Definitely a brain fart on my part. Sudbury is Nickel not Silver.
So how do you know that? Have you actually seen it happen? Not you nor any other geologist, I suggest. In fact your Number-One community dodge when you can’t find the actual remains is to suggest it evaporated. Just what Fred describes as plausibility being taken as evidence. Popper calls it advancing an ad hoc hypothesis to save the theory.
In this case, you can tell it’s ad hoc because the geologists who recently drilled into central peak of the Chicxulub Crater, down to 1335 m below the seafloor, used the other, Number-Two, dodge when explaining 其 failure to find the asteroidal/cometary remains, but without even admitting they might have been looking for them:
Your explanation of Cretaceous fossils laid down after the event as merely “swept in” is also ad hoc, as you actually do admit. You also offer no explanation for concentric crater rings and the central peak while the above geologists merely cite their 计算机建模。 需要我多说？
Plasma physicist Wal Thornhill has proposed an electromagnetic theory of gravity (I hesitate to say an alternative theory, because general relatively doesn’t seem to address its mechanism). In that theory, the electrons of the atoms making up the Earth, say, repel each other and in so doing are displaced enough to become electric dipoles with the electrons being on average closer to the surface. They thus attract the protons in other bodies. The math involved suggests this could possibly explain what is one of the weaker forces in the universe.
If so, a close encounter with a massive extra-galactic intruder with a large electric potential difference, for instance, could have caused caused your three “enigmatic hot spots” at the same “time and place”, as you suggest, simply by electrical arcing, and coincidentally have increased the Earth’s gravity enough to wipe out the dinosaurs. The larger ones, I mean, since the smaller ones are still flitting around our sky.
As I said, none of this detracts from your evolutionary arguments. It might even strengthen them.
carlos Marx and Charles Darwin are tools for the destruction of the west.
I don´t know what anyone wants – the second link backs me to the hilt
(especially the “swept in”). Well duh – it was did by other half-bakeds.
No surprises there (the mechanisms were exhaustively studied on the Nördlinger Ries long ago, and there´s a shitload of experiments and numerical simulations).
The third – if gravitation were a polarization effect it should have the characteristic of a van der Waals force, like the strong interaction (spoiler alert: maybe not quite 😛 ).
– I did read into the Electric Universe (admittedly after some prodding) but was underwhelmed – it has the same aftertaste as retired construction engineers pontificating on the pyramids.
But there´s always some good ideas – lest we rust 😀
no no no you mistakenly?ordered the spineless noisy breathing gay model
‘Its a theory, and unproven scientifically.
Therefore its a fraud.’
You can say the same thing about quantum physics, yet there are two big holes in Japan…
Caesar´s molecules – his genes might be somewhat 薄纱。 ????
But I see you are beginning to understand …
The essence of evolution is dieoff – endless playing with potentialities and the rejection of the vast majority of them. And even the “successful” ones are 亲 … our lot is to help bring forth the Übermensch and then step aside, like John the Baptist.
(my apologies to Nietzsche, Haeckel and all others I butchered)
The geologist in me might add that whatever you do amounts to little.
(the inevitable true believers´question after normative ethics (“Erkenntnis des Sollens”) has been answered from more competent sides – Augustinus and Kant are easy to integrate)
Unlike establishment cosmology, plasma cosmology (Electric Universe) is based on experimental physics, not mathematical models and creative fiction ungrounded from any real observation. The experimental principles and laws discovered by plasma physicists are thoroughly grounded in the Maxwellian principles of electricity and magnetism, have been shown valid over many orders of magnitude of scale, and have been observed operating in exactly the same manner in the near and far reaches of the universe as in the laboratory. Almost all the great scientific advances of the past have come from the experimental sciences. If you are underwhelmed, perhaps it’s because you need to cover your ass with the establishment.
Thornhill hypothesizes that gravity results from the electric formation of atomic dipoles on a compact mass, and from that you interpret him as talking about polarization and then toss out the non-sequitur of van der Waals. I think it’s you that needs to do the explaining. It’s far from obvious.
Now you’re just being coy. I was critiquing your Alvarez school of geology, not citing them for support. The Texas geologists drill down 1335 m through the central peak of the Chicxulub Crater and find no trace of the comet or asteroid they presume to have created it. But then they don’t even find that failure of sufficient note to even mention. They do, however, come up with what other adherents of their school (like you) will accept as a seemingly plausible reason for that failure, but again without mentioning why they needed to come up with a plausible reason.
Their dodge is that the impactor punched a hole through the Earth’s crust and disappeared into the mantle. No independent evidence is seen to be needed and none was apparently offered. Plausibility is deemed to be proof, as Fred so aptly pointed out. Meanwhile you missed that explanation as I offered it in my initial post and asserted quite the opposite reason — that all impactors above a certain size just evaporate. But of course consistency is of little import to the defenders of the faith. The sometimes hard, sometimes soft, science of geology is allowed, it seems, to indulge in flits of high fantasy when it departs from its more rigorous roots. The narrative is the only thing of importance.
And I still support your evolutionary arguments. You do need to explain why the smallest dinosaurs survived as modern birds, however.
Congratulations, Fred Reed, it was delightful for me to translate this witty essay in french. You can read an abstract and the first pages of my translation here:
The full translation is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RPfMEef7yw2_u8Ai-laO_-VgF0ENCYFs/view?usp=sharing
I hope many Frenchspeaking readers are going to enjoy it too, if you spread it around.
Dear Mr. Fred Reed,
Your article raises numbers of questions, but glancing through the long list of comments it seems to me that nobody has tried to provide you with answers. This must be very frustrating for you, and since my comment comes at the very bottom of the list I suppose that you have already given up reading them, so that this will be wasted.
Your objection to the theory of the evolution of life rests on the idea that much of it seems to you to be improbable. But what is probable? Who a year ago would have imagined that it would be probable that within a few months humanity would have turned into a race of masked zombies? Of course there is no way to say how improbable the formation of life on the earth was. But that is not for a lack of possible explanations, ranging from Darwin’s little warm pond, through to panspermia in an infinitely old universe, and ending with the idea that the Earth is the only object within the entire universe having life. The rational pathways which have been discussed seem, at least to me, to be more probable than explanations based on the mystical, esoteric and irrational thoughts mentioned at the end of your article.
But to be more concrete. You describe the fact that the eye is complicated. However as one ages, as I am doing, one soon realizes that a perfect Creator, designing the perfect eye, would do much better than what we, unfortunately, have. But of course the pathway from the simple nerve cells which react to light which those primitive jelly-like creatures in the sea have, to our awkward optical contraptions, has been described in many books.
What is a possible pathway to a wasp injecting its larvae into a living insect? To begin we have fish just dumping all their eggs into the water and forgetting them. Then going onto land, the eggs would be dumped on the ground and forgotten. Then, some eggs which perhaps happened to have been dumped into the excrements of other animals might have prospered. Then when that got to be taken up by evolution, some eggs might be dumped into recently dead insects, and that became established as a form of behavior. Then not quite so dead insects, and so forth.
What is a possible pathway to the caterpillar – butterfly creature? I agree with the idea that a primitive butterfly reproducing without its caterpillar phase of existence, evolving into a caterpillar with cocoon, seems implausible. But the other way would be quite natural. We start with a worm which, as it gets older, develops a protective shell. To get more quickly into the shell phase of life it hides itself, and wraps itself in some membrane to protect its sensitive skin. Then gradually the shell creature develops wings to help it catch other insects.
Why do the males of various species have seemingly harmful and extravagant colors or appendages? This is generally the case when few males mate with many females, so that the females choose which males they prefer. By chance some property is selected as being desirable, and then the females which choose to mate with the males having that property, and which thus produce male offspring having that property, reproduce more successfully. It is a kind of positive feedback.
Why do social creatures often display altruism? This can be explained very nicely using mathematical modeling, for example as described in Dawkins books.
You question why we humans don’t have super sensitive senses of smell and all other things. Given that our sense organs are imperfect products of evolution, why should we be perfect? But perhaps one could also say that our minds are not as potentially wonderful as you might think. Too much sensory input confuses things, leading to undesirable actions. The example of idiot savants with one or two limited, but super, abilities would demonstrate such a proposition.
Finally you make some observations on the seemingly irrational behavior of different classes of people. This seems to me to be irrelevant since, in a sense we have conquered evolution, suddenly becoming zombies, leading to our own extinction.
Even on Robinson Crusoe’s island, a natural hierarchy would develop.
Anarchy is R breeding African males driving around in Toyota technical pickups, demanding their cut, and raping the women who look good.
Oh wait… that does happen in Africa once civilization falls.
This can only happen in a world of perfectly white or dark. This didn’t exist. So the probability of survive isn’t Zero, regardless of the colour the moths have.
There is further no hint that genes get lost if not used. Everey species has unused parts, humans e.g. the bones for a tail at the end of the spine.
Imo evolution exist, but the cause can’t be mutation/selection. Simple math, there must be layers of remnants from misconfigured species found on earth which isn’t. Much more than working ones. There must be a force that guides evolution the right way. This is the part of creation, hidden to us.
Where the same questions appear. The worm must be converted in a lightweight creature able to fly and developes the complicated wings and muscles and control apparutus the same time. All of them useful not before all of them completed. Viewed from the outcome a clear path, from the starting point of the worms carreer hard to imagine.
This is vanity. Who cares?
(the server ate my homework – lockdown ungood for 4G 😀 )
– Magnetic dipoles can behave in the described fashion (with obvious problems), electric ones not without an external field -> polarization and 再见 to simple field equation. Newton may have been a supercilious prick but his algos work … while you cannot run a measly three-body problem on Maxwell.
I´m the first to admit a Higgs field is beyond me, but that´s elementary.
– Coulomb forces are observably independent from gravity.
Charge differentials on the postulated scale strain credulity (weak, I know).
– Come to think about it, neither the element signature nor the shocked quartzes rule out arcing if big enough; where then are the mountains of lechatelierite? (you might want to look up “pseudotachylite”; there ，那恭喜你， things we do not tell the little ones 😛 )
– That still leaves the shatter cones and (especially) the tektite fields (no electric explanation whatsoever, you do not get asymmetric jets from the headwave)
– They did not drill the central mound (the stupidest place to look if you want a sequence) but the crest of a secondary crater rim (= block slumping into the primary cavity) – I know the wording takes some getting used to. It´s a bit like Krafft-Ebing putting his 性精神病 in Latin so the unwashed masses wouldn´t use it for masturbatory purposes (sic!).
So let´s see … we have us an impactor of 10km at a plausible velocity of 20km/sec,
a primary crater 4 or 5x that, they drilled 学校以外 of it an eye-watering 1335m
and cored half of it, and you demand they present a sheepishly grinning impactor with dino tails dangling from the corner of its mouth.
Geeez … why on 地球 would they want a language of their own?!
– The sequence is as expected, but the “10cm cross-bedded” between the tsunamis and the firestorm is interesting …
– Every land animal >50lbs dying out is usually taken to mean disruption of food chain (end of photosynthesis, darkness up to three years depending on model; world fire, well documented: soot, polycyclics, “fern peak” in subsequent pollen spectra). Crocodiles surviving fits this well.
– Marine animals were less affected – this time -, so acidification probably played a lesser role; only those dependent on photosynthesis (Rudista = reef-forming oysters) or with aragonitic (= more soluble) shells (Ammonoidea).
Remember, I agree with you, and you are only quibbling about what should be called evolution. Should dog breeding be called short-term evolution? That is analogous, and now you have made me think that none of this short term stuff is really any kind of evolution after all.
Methink there is not much to disagree on this. Obvious and simple to understand. But the opposite “the colour evolution of moths” is common sense and i learned it either. I learned it in school and believed this nonsense. At that time i am not aware that they want me to be misguided. I disputed it first time after reading Fred Reed’s article on Darwin. At this very moment it was obvious that i was filled with sh… again.
Lot of “official scientific” like this. HalfTruth, NonTruth, OffTopicTruth UselessTruth etc. In other words propaganda. Myself disputes everything i ever learned and a lot of stuff is made to confuse your mindset.
So cute. Perhaps you’re a recently retired extraction-industry geologist who has had to mostly talk to himself all those years. But anyway, you do make it clear you want no embarrassing questions about the remains of that elusive impactor.
In fact, there is no point in asking any establishment geologist to distinguish between a crater formed by cosmic electrical arcing between planet-sized bodies and one caused by an impacting asteroid or comet. He does not recognize the former is possible and every non-bomb crater is assumed to be the latter, whether on the Earth, the Moon or Venus. So all your talk about lechatelierites and such is just word salad. You have never seen a situation you would admit to be arcing so you just force-fit everything you see into the impactor straitjacket. It’s like trying to discern the effect of a Covid19 vaccine in a clinical trial when you’ve lost the records of which patients took it.
BTW, lechatelierites are just fused silica glass, caused, supposedly, by meteorite impacts, volcanism and lightning strikes. I seem to remember lots of glassy spherules being found in the K-T boundary. What you call them is a political question.
So you need to talk to plasma physicists to see the defining characteristics of the different crater types. They at least recognize both types and have the laboratory data to prove their claims. First they know that electrical arcing strikes elevated terrain, cuts mostly straight down in fluted patterns and commonly makes circular craters (or nearly so) with central peaks and concentric rings. (Hmmm — just like Chicxulub). We also know that solid impactors generally strike at an oblique angle and should therefore logically produce an elongated crater. Further the impactors are foreign objects and should have different and distinct mineral compositions. That is clearly seen in the Sudbury Basin with its rich Nickel deposits. But no, neither you nor your Chicxulub geologists will permit that little discussion.
The Sudbury basin is also elongated, with dimensions 62 km x 39 km. But of course, a little handwave from your establishment geologists dismisses that as the remnant of a more circular crater: it has, they say, “been severely deformed to the extent that it no longer expresses a circular form.” The Chicxulub geologists specifically noted the “circular gravity and magnetic anomalies over the Chicxulub structure (Figures 1 and 5a)”. So, presto, impact craters are now necessarily circular. Forget all those Carolina Bays! Logic is so easy when you have an enforced consensus and nothing but fawning praise from the NYTimes.
Your Chicxulub geologists linked a significant (upwards) displacement of the Moho discontinuity some 30 km underneath the surface to the alleged impact zone on the surface. One might think that a line drawn between these features would indicate the impact direction but unfortunately perhaps, that line turned out to be essentially vertical. And so we find them saying [cue handwave] that “asymmetries in these features cannot be used to infer impact direction or angle” because [Abra-cadabra], “Studies of central peak craters and [PeakRing] craters on Venus show no relationship between impact angle and location of topographic expressions of central peaks or [Peak Rings]” Yet all of their simulation diagrams show the impactor coming in vertically. Logic is so easy when you can pretend that plasma physicists are irrelevant.
Again the Chicxulub basement, melt‐bearing breccia, and impact melt rocks were found to “have remanent magnetizations that are three to four orders of magnitude higher than near‐surface target rocks.” There is no obvious explanation for this finding in an impact scenario. Electrical arcing, on the other hand, is by Maxwell an electromagnetic phenomenon capable of inducing magnetism. But hey, no need to concede such an explanation when you can [cue handwave] invoke a vacuous faerie-dust explanation involving “hydrothermal systems” with “magnetic phases.” Logic is so easy when you can put Mr. Occam into twenty-year naps and go off to the pub. Just cancel all those “conspiracy theorists.”
There are lots of other problems with the Alvarez hypothesis. The K-T boundary layer around Chicxulub seems rather small and apparently contains little or none of the Iridium that gave rise to the theory in the first place. The global effects of the alleged impactor are written in a just-so manner that should induce skepticism. And again there is no accounting for the fact that the big dinosaurs were too heavy to survive in Earth gravity.
Interesting tact that, defending Newton’s Law of Gravitation through the functionality of his algos, which have been tuned to fit the local conditions of the Solar System. The Law itself does not, of course, explain what causes gravity but merely describes, very well, how the force of gravity is proportional to the product of attracting masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Some physicists have noted that Coulomb’s Law for the attraction of electric charges has exactly the same form.
Einstein’s gravitational theory likewise only describes the effect of gravitation — as being in accord with a different geometry of space. The only modern establishment theories that attempt to explain the mechanism of gravity tend to invoke faerie-dust concepts like gravitons, which supposedly travel at the speed of light.
A Newtonian version of the graviton theory is formally falsified because it means the earth, for instance, is always attracted to the sun’s position some eight minutes before. This, according to your algos, means the Solar System will always tend to fly apart. So really all you have is those algos.
Unfortunately those algos also demand that the stars in the outer reaches of galaxies must rotate about the galaxy centers at much slower speeds than stars near the central cores, just like the outer planets of the Solar System. This prediction failed big time and to account for that failure, cosmologists have invented another form of faerie-dust called “dark matter,” and have had to assume it makes up a full 85% of the universe.
Again, defying all of the variables that we know about the gravity of the sun and its solar system, the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, launched in 1972-3, have slowed down. Both Pioneers ought be a bit further out than they are, instead they are about 248,000 miles closer to the sun than they should be. The same strange effect seems to have also been at work on the Ulysses and Galileo probes.
“None of the simple explanations add up, the most prominent being the suggestion that heat leaking from the radioactive generators that powered the craft created a slight brake in their velocity. This lack of a simple theory that explains their motion has lead to more exotic suggestions from scientists ranging from some interaction with dark matter, an aspect of gravity that we do not yet understand, or some mysterious unknown property of the universe that is somehow working against the probes.
“These theories may end up having mind-numbing implications. The effect is not consistent with what we know about gravity. It could mean that gravity works differently than we thought.
“The effect is so apparent over such a short distance, our solar system is very small compared to the rest of the universe, that it could force a major revision of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.”
Wal Thornhill gives a much more consistent explanation:
“After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance.”
It is true I have never seen cosmic arcing between planetary bodies,
but neither has anyone else (what might that possibly mean?).
– Shockwaves refract to the plumb, so craters above a certain energy are more or less circular (harder to explain by arcing).
– That the crust underneath should be thinned is to be expected;
180km crater + 30km Moho = everything more or less vertical.
To scale, the crust is about as thick as an apple´s peel.
– Quousque tandem abutere, Itch, patientia nostra? Sudbury is not a “basin” but a melt plug of deep origin, NOT comparable to the suevite* (superficial) “melt” in the Chicxulub.
– Remanent magnetization is a more esoteric aspect of the art, depending on susceptibility and “hardness”. The simplest explanation here would be dewatering of limonite
2 FeOOH -> Fe2O3 + H2O and some recrystallisation; arcing, however, should produce an aberrant pattern (circular).
– Arcing does not produce coesite and stishovite (ultrahigh-p SiO2 modifications).
– Arcing does not produce tektites – concentrated jets of molten surface rock (without chemical signature of impactor) from headwave squeezed out at 3-4x impactor velocity
(famous example: the scarab on Tut´s pectorale). Tektites are the most reliable indicator of direction of impact (IF they can be tied to a crater).
* The Nördlinger Ries served as model for crater formation during Apollo (and the mechanics have been refined ever since). “Suevite” is a local term for partially melted (+/- foamy) and ejected breccia, a characteristic blue-grey bleh.
– Alvarez assumed (first iteration) total evaporation; as even few geologists fully grok it, allow me …
In the beginning, Alvarez the Father dug up ancient tablets inscribed with runes from
Viktor Moritz Goldschmidt (yes, they were golden tablets), and He reasoned thusly:
Any number of extreme siderophiles (Goldschmidt´s term for elements that fractionate into the iron -> core) on the surface will constitute proof of extraterrestrial origin; for reasons of mobility and neutron activation, iridium shall be the Chosen one.
Let Us, then, summon forth Alvarez the Son to gather the true dirt from the four corners of the globe.
Amount of dirt X plausible composition (“CHUR”, chondritic uniform reserve, a routine proxy for average composition of the inner solar system) = putative size
Putative size X square of plausible relative velocity (20km/sec for right-moving asteroid)/2 = yield -> crater size
Age: well duh
Location: somewhere near the Rio Brazos (tsunami deposits with >1m components),
at minimum on the North American continent (note the Gulf is a continent while Iceland is an ocean).
(You may have noticed I am from the much older and more dignified Suess school, but what´s the point of pooping on your betters?)
Now, show me your van de Graaff generator 😛
– That galaxies do not Kepler-rotate is counterintuitive, but little I reck. Of course “dark matter” (like “dark energy”) is just a Maxwellian demon. The algos must flow.
– If you so fervently want it electric I suggest the orientation of hourglass nebulae …
whatever Sagittarius A* did, it must have been big 😀
– Maybe not quite so. The 潜在差异 is constant (NOT the force) i.e. for 小 distances Coulomb forces differ infinitesimally from gravity.
——由数百家创建、维护和提供物联网(IoT)全球开放标准的公司所组成的 chromoelectric force is independent of distance (instead it condenses to muons).
So sorry. I will definitely defer to you on issues like identifying synclines, slip faults and lechatelierites. But until you prove otherwise I am going to assume my physics background at least matches yours in the matters of electricity, magnetism and optics, including refraction. Most certainly, I am not going to let you get away with howlers like these:
Wherein you assert the ability to prove any number of negatives — and you do it from ignorance.
Wherein you astonishingly add a horizontal scalar (180 km) to a vertical depth (30 km) to get a vertical.
Same problem: makes absolutely no sense to say they drilled outside a 40-50 km wide crater a full 1335 m straight down.
Wherein you reify a theoretical and never-observed fictional entity, give it unobserved and unpostulated properties, then offer it as …?… A defense of Newtonian gravitation? Total BS.
Wherein you neglect the small matter that refraction only occurs when a wave passes from a dense to a less dense medium, or v/v. The only shock wave invoked by Chicxulub geologists began as the alleged impactor struck the ground. No subsequent change of medium. They invoke no refraction, saying, ‘Collision of the asteroid with the target surface generates a detached shockwave that propagates symmetrically from the impact site.”
Leaving the howlers, you do point out that the Sudbury Nickel deposit is seen to be a later intrusion of igneous magma, which on reflection I can accept. I did, however, find the following comparison of Sudbury and Chicxulub, which finds they are quite similar in their suevite/breccia characteristics. Sudbury even shows evidence of the same peak-ring structure. Most likely they are either both impactor-generated craters or both arc-generated craters.
That’s actually close to the mechanism suggested by the Texas geologists, except it didn’t comport that well with their own data. The highly scattered magnetic-inclination values, of two of their unit samples, they said, “did not experience sufficient heating to thermally reset their predepositional magnetization directions after their emplacement.”
So here’s how your Alvarez school approaches the issue of the impact angle of the alleged Chicxulub impactor. The authors of this Nature study concede that the trajectory angle and direction of the Chicxulub impact are not known, but a near-vertical impact is unlikely: “Only one quarter of impacts occur at angles between 60° and the vertical and only 1 in 15 impacts is steeper than 75°.” They also note that K-T ejecta layers are pretty much symmetrical in all directions around the crater, which argues for a high angle of approach. Then they note that the K-T extinction, being worldwide, needed an extraordinary amount of ejecta and that this would best be accomplished with a high angle of approach. So Presto, the angle must have been 60°.
Then the lead author, Gareth Collins, goes to Imperial College and, begging the question, announces: “Our 模拟 provide compelling evidence that the asteroid struck at a steep angle, perhaps 60 degrees above the horizon.”
The above-noted comparison of Sudbury and Chicxulub use essentially the same logic, though being somewhat more transparent and honest about it. It is still circular:
I can’t wait to hear about all the asteroids you’ve seen dig out big craters. Check these out:
Without commenting on your introduction of gluon/muon theory, which is admittedly beyond my competence, here is a video of Dr. Raymond Gallucci, a retired nuclear engineer, presenting the simple, independent mathematical modeling he has performed to test the plausibility of Thornhill’s gravity theory. Not a proof in any way, to be sure. But scientifically intriguing:
No need to get defensive – you´re mistaking self-deprecation for condescension 😉
I fondly remember a head of department – sedimentologist no less – declaring 前题, for the benefit of yours truly, that “everything applied is parascience”. The secret reason the profession is the second-Whitest in the land is it´s 脏 (and not what you might hope).
Ever since Alvarez&Alvarez blazed the trail with blood, sweat and tears
the me-too 😛 bandwagon has gotten crowded and the quality suffered …
– Tweaking numerical simulations is SOP; it´s not considered “proof”, more a check on the quality of your assumptions and model.
– Postulating, on structural grounds alone, a comet for Sudbury is problematic:
Comets are up to 4x faster, ~half as dense and have no siderophile signature (frozen snot). At least they recognized it´s more deeply eroded (= forget their “suevites”).
– The similar size seems to mark the upper limit of preservation i.e. anything bigger might not be recognizable as crater*. The Shiva (500km) probably isn´t, the Russians have one of 300km in southern Greenland but eroded so deeply only the pseudotachylites are left i.e. it peters out with depth like the Chicxulub but unlike Sudbury.
*Under discussion are the “basic layered intrusions” (e.g. Bushveld/ZA, Stillwater/MT, ..), non-actualistic structural, petrological and chemical disaster areas.
– If you want “idle musings” disclaimers to make these papers engineer-safe
you´ll have to sue.
The erosion forms are wacky, but again nothing to see here (only to behold).
Indeed they look like a criminally oversimplified simulation.
– The spark-gap photo shows Mach waves and nothing else; no “reflections”, no “harmonics”.
– In the profession photos without scale can lead to involuntary gender reassignment; but I understand they do not believe in scale.
– The postulated deposition mechanism would mean antidune crossbedding
(tentatively confirmed from ignimbrite base surges i.e. I´m afraid not observed either),
IOW an internal structure so outlandish it couldn´t be overlooked but everything is obviously conformable to the lyingwall (which has 没什么 to do with the “brick-like” fracture pattern).
– The “dikes” are haertlings (probably quartz clefts).
– “Everything circular or triangular is an arc” is not far removed from “everything remotely elongate is a penis”. I´d rather not elaborate.
– But the piéce de résistance 是
It is considered bad form to make fun of the handicapped, but I almost peed myself.
I am not “trying to prove negatives”, just waiting for positives while noting 传人 what I consider diagnostic i.e. where I would look if it were my 问题。
I did have this idea … look for SiC and Si3N4 in the boundary layer (they do occur in the presolar fraction of primitive meteorites but should form in noticeable amounts by arcing 和 be stable enough to still be there).
Nice description of … 表面张力.
Sorry, still no gravity 😛
Having grown up in and around the mountains of East Tennessee, I can say with complete honesty that I have never known a snake handling Christian who had only three teeth. Most of them have at least fifteen or twenty.
Maybe it’s something in the North Carolina water that makes that allusion intelligible, but I wouldn’t know. I don’t go over those mountains: I was always told if I made it as far as Bryson City, everybody would disown me, and anyway I would never make it back alive, or with all my teeth.
I’m late to this, but your comments were too interesting to resist. Hope I’m not too late.
I totally agree with all the following:
They are all things that might have appeared in the pages of the Free Individual [https://usabig.com, if you’re interested] which is dedicated to individuals who have made themselves free. I’m convinced you, “a US expat living on the island or Roatan, Honduras,” are exactly that.
I do disagree with this:
…because I do not believe any government law solves anything. I agree that 99% of advertising is lies, appealing not to individual reason, but the emotions, feelings, fears, and sentiments, which is always dishonest. But I cannot wish for any power to limit what any other individual does, or what anyone says, publishes, or promotes, especially to, “protect,” me, (or anyone else)_ from our own ignorance and gullibility. I’m surprised that you would–but perhaps you only meant it rhetorically.
As an anarchist, I don’t believe in the laws gov’ts make and have no moral duty to obey them.
My comment for making things 非法 was hard for me to write because I don’t believe in the concept of illegal myself. Illegal implies an authority that can adjudicate it and I recognize no such authority.
I used that common word in the current context of a rogue gov’t that really doesn’t care about the people getting rid of a source of propaganda. I know damned well that would never happen, but put it out there for people to ponder who are currently statists but have some doubts about their allegiance to bullshit authority.
I think we may be of a similar Weltanschauung.
I love your article, Fred. Very thought-provoking.
Excuse me that I didn’t go through all the posts here; are you aware that Darwin himself and his family had a history of inbreeding?
Darwin himself was probably a plagiarist?
You almost wrote a book on this one, but I’m glad you did. I binge read your columns much the same way I binge watch The Carbonara Effect. Being an earthly being with obviously limited knowledge, I will say that I come down on the side of creation. Truthfully, neither side of the coin makes any sense to me in my relatively simple mind. I have never understood why no theoretical physicists or any highly educated, supposedly men/women of science don’t just flat out admit they just don’t know how things came to be. I have no trouble at all declaring that none of it makes any sense to me. I get hung up at the very beginning. That being how in hell do we get something from nothing. There is more (or less, depending on your perspective) to this nothing thing than we realize. When we think of nothing, what comes to mind? Darkness perhaps? Hmm, is there even darkness? Nothing would be just that, no matter, NO SPACE, nor time. If someone can get me past this initial hump I’d appreciate it. So, we have nothing, with nothing to build on or intelligence to guide it, yet here we are, with not only beautiful women, butterflies and Coors, but an entire universe with billions upon billions of stars and galaxies. Perhaps a multiverse even. No, my mind stops right there, and I suspect it does so with about six plus billion other people on the planet. Oh yeah, now’s where you exit. My wife and I spend our summers at our cabin in the Montana Rockies, and while camping in our field (we don’t have neighbors) and sky watching, we DID see a UFO. Yep, flat out saw something not of this world, unless we have more than anyone can imagine. Fred, keep up the good work. We love you man!
亨利·亚当斯（Henry Adams）是总统的孙子和曾孙，他在伦敦协助他的叔叔，他是美国战争期间的联邦驻英国大使。 他写下了他与达尔文的会面——
自然选择导致自然进化，最后导致自然统一。 这是一个巨大的进步。 在统一的条件下，不间断的进化使每个人都满意-除了牧师和主教； 它是宗教的最好替代品； 安全，保守，实用，彻底的普通法神。 这种适用于宇宙的工作系统适合一个年轻人，他刚刚帮助浪费了五或一亿美元，或多或少地浪费了一百万条生命，以对反对它的人实行统一和统一。 这个想法在其完美方面太诱人了； 它具有艺术的魅力。 统一和统一是哲学的全部动机，如果达尔文像一个真正的英国人那样宁愿回到它里面来-后世到达上帝-而不是像斯宾诺莎一样从它那里开始，那么方法的差异只能教导道德上的意义。达到团结的最好方法是团结。 到达的任何一条路都很好。
所有这些对于真正的达尔文主义者来说都是微不足道的，而对于查尔斯爵士来说，这仅仅是地质记录中的缺陷。 查尔斯爵士只是在努力积累进化的证据。 累积它们直到群众变得不可抗拒。 为此，亚当斯很高兴地研究并试图帮助查尔斯爵士，但在今天的课程之后，他意识到在地质学和神学中，他只能证明没有进化的进化论。 不均匀的均匀性； 和没有选择的选择。 对于其他达尔文主义者（达尔文除外），《自然选择》似乎是一种教条，可以代替阿萨纳斯教义。 这是宗教上的希望的一种形式； 极致完美的承诺。 亚当斯没有更好的希望，他热情地同情这个对象。 但是当他问自己真正的想法时，他感到自己没有信仰。 这样，每当有新的爱好出现时，他就一定会像一只猴子从栖息地上掉下达尔文主义。
如果想从数学家那里更仔细地考虑和更广泛地回应进化论，我建议阅读 David Berlinkski 的 Deniable Darwin。 在 YouTube 上寻找他。 Berlinski 将他的批评者的逐字回应以及他自己对他们评论的回应包括在内。 所以你可以自己拿主意。 他也恰好是一位出色的散文文体设计师，具有巧妙的幽默感。
也许你是对的; 你可能错了。 但他也创造了大脑，使你作为一个有知觉的人能够构建一个论点，即提供“相信的理由”，支持你的观点。 使用它，不要只是做出毫无意义的就好像前大教堂的陈述 大爸爸 说'什么是。 上帝创造了它。 哇，我确信——或者更确切地说，不是。