五夜講場 真係好科學 2019：進擊的智人
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- 2019-06-07
在過去的400萬年內，地球上曾存在過許多不同的人類物種，最後卻只剩智人(Homo sapiens)⸺即是我們⸺存活了下來。擁有語言能力是智人勝出這場生存競賽的原因嗎？不斷變換的地理環境和食物來源，如何左右着人類的演化進程？人類出現多毛症、尾巴增生這些「返祖」的現象，如何印證了人類的演化過程？踏入太空時代，宇宙的獨特環境又會怎樣改寫人類演化的軌道？
主持：
陳志宏（紐約大學物理系博士）
李明（香港中文大學通識教育基礎課程講師）
吳家亮（香港中文大學通識教育基礎課程講師）
馬學綸（香港中文大學微生物學系博士）
集集精采，長知識了
HI, 你個節目好正, 不過個討論唔係好有重點。同埋，我想知道智人嘅智慧出現原因，請問會唔會做個節目講呢樣野??
appreciate your uploading
乳糖消化不良
Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Natural Selection
Jonathan Wells
SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE
Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. A Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, he has previously worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. He also taught biology at California State University in Hayward and continues to lecture on the subject.
In the Introduction to On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote, “I am fully convinced that species are not immutable.” He continued, “Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”1
But Darwin had no evidence for natural selection. In On the Origin of Species, the best he could offer was “one or two imaginary illustrations.”2 So instead of direct evidence for natural selection, Darwin (who himself bred pigeons) based his argument on domestic breeding, or what is often called artificial selection. He noted that “the breeding of domestic animals was carefully attended to in ancient times,” and that “its importance consists in the great effect produced by the accumulation in one direction, during successive generations, of differences absolutely inappreciable by an uneducated eye.”3
The Origin of Species
Yet in all the years of domestic breeding, no one ever reported the origin of a new species, much less a new organ or body plan. In the 1930s, neo-Darwinian biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky used the word microevolution to refer to changes within existing species (such as those observed by domestic breeders), and the word macroevolution to refer to the origin of new species, organs, and body plans. He wrote,
“There is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime and often controlled by man’s will. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.4
Evidence for Natural Selection?
But a “working hypothesis” is not evidence. It wasn’t until the 1950s that British naturalist Bernard Kettlewell discovered what appeared to be the first evidence for natural selection. Peppered moths in the UK exist predominantly in two varieties: dark (“melanic”) and light. Before the 19th-century industrial revolution, melanic forms were rare or absent, but when smoke from industrial cities darkened nearby tree trunks, the melanic form became much more common. This phenomenon, called industrial melanism, was attributed to melanic moths being better camouflaged than light moths and thus less visible to predatory birds: in other words, to natural selection.
Kettlewell captured some of each variety and marked them with a tiny spot of paint. Then he released them onto dark- or light-colored tree trunks. When he recaptured some the next day, he found that a significantly greater proportion of better-camouflaged moths survived. Kettlewell termed this this “Darwin’s missing evidence.”5 The story, usually illustrated with photos of light- and dark-colored peppered moths on light- and dark-colored tree trunks, was featured for decades in many biology textbooks as compelling evidence for evolution.6
The Habits of Peppered Moths
By the 1980s, however, it had become clear that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks in the wild. They fly by night and rest during the day in upper branches where they can’t be seen. By releasing moths onto tree trunks in the daytime, Kettlewell’s experiment failed to simulate natural conditions. It turned out that most textbook photographs had been staged by pinning dead moths on tree trunks or by placing live moths in unnatural positions and photographing them before they moved away.7
Better evidence for natural selection came from finches in the Galápagos Islands in the 1970s. The islands were home to what biologists listed as 13 different species of finches, and biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues studied one of these on a single island. The Grants and their colleagues kept detailed records of each finch species’ anatomy, including the length and depth of their beaks. When a severe drought in 1977 killed many of the islands’ plants, about 85 percent of the birds died. The Grants and their colleagues noted that the survivors had beaks that were, on average, 5 percent larger than the population average before the drought, presumably because the surviving birds were better able to crack the tough seeds left by the drought. In other words, the shift was due to natural selection. The Grants estimated that if a similar drought occurred every ten years, the birds’ beaks would continue to get larger until they would qualify as a new species in 200 years.8
The Arrival of the Fittest
When the drought ended and the rains returned, however, food was plentiful, and the average beak size returned to normal. No net evolution had occurred.9 Nevertheless, “Darwin’s finches” found their way into most biology textbooks as evidence for evolution by natural selection.10
So there is evidence for natural selection, but like domestic breeding, it has never been observed to produce anything more than microevolution. As Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries wrote in 1904, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”11
For the arrival of the fittest, most modern evolutionary biologists rely on mutations.
Notes:
1. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 6, darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=21&itemID=F373&viewtype=side (accessed August 23, 2020).
2. Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 90, darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=105&itemID=F373&viewtype=side (accessed August 23, 2020).
3. Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 32-34, darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=47&itemID=F373&viewtype=side (accessed August 23, 2020).
4. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 12.
5. H.B.D. Kettlewell, “Darwin’s missing evidence,” Scientific American 200 (1959), 48-53.
6. Jonathan Wells, “Second Thoughts About Peppered Moths: This classical story of evolution by natural selection needs revising,” The Scientist 13 (May 24, 1999), www.discovery.org/a/590/ (accessed August 23, 2020); Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000), 137-157.
7. Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy and the Peppered Moth (London, UK: Fourth Estate, 2002); Wells, Zombie Science, 63-66.
8. Peter T. Boag and Peter R. Grant, “Intense natural selection in a population of Darwin’s finches (Geospizinae) in the Galápagos,” Science 214 (1981), 82-85.
9. H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, “Oscillating selection on Darwin’s finches,” Nature 327 (1987), 511-513.
10. Wells, Icons of Evolution, 159-175.
11. Hugo de Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Mutation, 2d ed. (Chicago, IL: Open Court Press, 1906), 825-826, www.gutenberg.org/files/7234/7234-h/7234-h.htm (accessed August 23, 2020).
Link to the passage: evolutionnews.org/2022/02/top-scientific-problems-with-evolution-natural-selection/
#Natural-selection
#Evolution
#Charles-Darwin
#The-Origin-of-Species
#Microevolution
#Macroevolution
#Peppered-moths
#Finches
#Mutations
反駁進化論
戚大衛博士
我們反對進化論，因為進化論否認亞當夏娃的歷史事實，否認人類的墮落，否認死亡是因為罪而不是自然的結果；進化論否認耶穌基督是創造主，因而也否認道成肉身。即使是從科學的角度來講，進化論也有很多問題：
(1) 隨機的過程不可能產生有用的信息，例如在鍵盤上亂打不可能因此會打出倚天屠龍記來；
(2) 我們觀察到的是信息隨時間自然流失（熵定律），而不是反轉來；
(3) 有用的東西通常有一個結構，例如眼睛，如果水晶體在視網膜後面就沒有用了，這些結構是需要設計的；
(4) 進化論者本身的邏輯有誤，即使我們把運作機制搞懂了，亦不能證明沒有設計者存在，譬如，我們知道了印刷機可以把書本印刷出來，但是這並不代表這本書的作者不存在；
(5) 宏觀進化從來都無法在實驗室複製，阿米巴原蟲永遠還是阿米巴原蟲，蒼蠅永遠還是蒼蠅；
(6) 實驗室觀察到的是，進化只能是一個篩選的過程，譬如從一堆各有不同、多樣化的鯉魚中，篩選出（培育出）一些凸眼、頂天眼的金魚，過程中信息是減小了；如果要反過來，從頂天眼的金魚培育出普通眼睛的鯉魚，是不可能的。換句話說，如果開始時有一隻超級大怪物，入水能游、出水能飛，從這隻大怪物進化出只能游的魚、只能飛的鳥，就有可能；但是如果要反過來，從單細胞進化出複雜的物種，是不可能的，也違反實驗結果；
(7) 從方法論來講，科學無法證明歷史，你怎樣證明我上星期日步行返教會？科學只能收集一些證據，提出最常見、最高可能性的猜測，肯定會認為我是坐車而不是步行的；
( 8 ) 化石只能證明物種的存在，不能證明物種間有祖先後代關係。
因此羅馬書說，自從造天地以來，上帝的永能和神性是明明可知的，雖是眼不能見，但藉著所造之物就可以曉得，叫人無可推諉。 願主使用這篇文章。願榮耀歸主。阿們。
文章連結: alayluya.com/article/205187
#進化論
#熵定律
#智慧設計
#宏觀進化
#化石
#創造論
#上帝
#耶穌
#女人後裔
上帝：我喜歡造個進化論出來，吹咩
@@閹人張翼德 人妄自稱自己是代表上帝說話，這類人必會受到審判。
Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Mutation
Jonathan Wells
SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE
Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. A Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, he has previously worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. He also taught biology at California State University in Hayward and continues to lecture on the subject.
Darwin insisted that new variations - the raw materials for natural selection - originated without purpose or direction, but he did not know their source. It wasn’t until 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the molecular structure of DNA, that many biologists thought the source had been found.
Watson and Crick inferred that DNA consists of two complementary strands, each composed of a string of four subunits. In 1958, Crick proposed that the sequences of subunits specify sequences of RNA molecules that function as intermediates in the synthesis of proteins. The RNA sequences then specify the sequences of amino acids, the subunits of proteins.1
The Central Dogma
Some modern biologists think that the sequence of amino acids specifies the final form of a protein, and that proteins specify the final form of an organism. This line of reasoning is sometimes called the central dogma of molecular biology, and it can be crudely summarized as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us.” In 1970, molecular biologist François Jacob wrote that an organism is the realization of a “genetic program” written in its DNA.2 Under this view, changes (mutations) in DNA sequences would change the genetic program and thus modify the organism in any number of ways. Molecular biologist Jacques Monod (who shared a 1965 Nobel Prize with Jacob) wrote that with this realization, “and the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation that molecular biology has also provided, the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded. And man has to understand that he is a mere accident.”3
But can DNA mutations really be the source of the variations needed for macroevolution? Certainly they can cause changes in an organism, but biologists have long recognized that most DNA mutations are either neutral (that is, they produce no observable changes) or harmful. To lead to the sort of evolution that could produce plants and animals from lower forms of life, we need mutations that cause beneficial variations. Otherwise, natural selection would either ignore them or tend to eliminate them.
Only Small Biochemical Changes
Rare beneficial mutations have been found, but all of them produce only small biochemical changes - not new organs or body plans. Frequently these advantageous changes involve the loss or diminishment of function at the biochemical level.4 Many biologists have concluded that the idea of a genetic program was wrong, and that DNA does not control the development of an organism. DNA is necessary, but not sufficient; other factors are also involved. One of these is spatial information in membrane patterns.5 According to evolutionary biologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith, the idea that DNA contains all the information needed to make an organism “is simply false.” Membrane patterns “play a key role in the mechanisms that convert the linear information of DNA into the three-dimensional shapes of single cells and multicellular organisms. Animal development creates a complex three-dimensional multicellular organism not by starting from the linear information in DNA…but always starting from an already highly complex three-dimensional unicellular organism, the fertilized egg.6
Since the 1970s, molecular biologists have performed comprehensive screens for mutations affecting embryo development in fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish, and mice. Hundreds of mutations have been identified, but none of them change development in the fundamental ways needed for macroevolution. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that no matter how much we mutate a fruit fly embryo, only three outcomes are possible: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a house fly, much less a roundworm, a zebrafish, or a mouse, can be produced via mutations.
Notes
1. Francis H.C. Crick, “On protein synthesis,” Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 12 (1958), 138-163.
2. François Jacob, The Logic of Life, trans. Betty E. Spillmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973), 3.
3. Jacques Monod, quoted in Horace Freeland Judson, The Eighth Day of Creation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), 217.
4. Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution (New York: Free Press, 2019).
5. Jonathan Wells, “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA,” BIO-Complexity 2014 (2); Jonathan Wells, “Why DNA Mutations Cannot Accomplish What Neo-Darwinism Requires,” Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, eds. J.P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 237-256.
6. Thomas Cavalier-Smith, “The membranome and membrane heredity in development and evolution,” Organelles, Genomes and Eukaryote Phylogeny, eds. Robert P. Hirt and David S. Horner (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004), 335-351.
Link to the passage: evolutionnews.org/2022/02/top-scientific-problems-with-evolution-mutation/
#Evolution
#Mutation
#Natural-selection
#DNA
#RNA
#Proteins
#Amino-acids
#Macroevolution