Tuesday, June 18, 2013

摩西與missing link



仲要講missing link?

所謂missing link,即化石記錄中「失落的環節」,是反演化論者常掛在口邊的「質疑」。但他們往往不求甚解,隨口就問;講出 ‘missing link’一詞,就似乎等同質疑完畢。

應該要多謝高皓正,他既提出問題,不如就藉機會,溫習一次演化論。

高皓正的連珠炮第七問:「猴子要進化成人類,要花數十萬年甚至上百萬年的時間,為何現在只有猴子或者人類,而猴子和人類中間,沒有了正在進化過程中的物種,例如傳說中的人猿?Missing Link在哪裏呢?」(人不是由猴子變,也不應把「演化」誤解成「進化」,演變過程也不只數百萬年,見《演化炒飯(1): 高皓正與猴子變》)

現在談missing link

[2.1 尋找摩西的missing link]

反演化論者謂,若有演化,現有的生物品種與品種,於演化過程間,應有很多「過渡品種」,百多年前只見零散化石,他們說不見「過渡品種」化石,後來這些「過渡品種」化石找到了,他們又說「過渡品種」與現存品種之間,也應有過渡品種、過渡品種與過渡品種也要有過渡品種,沒完沒了,只能稱此伎為「苛索化石」。

每次見到這些「批評」,我都會想起Richard Dawkins的一個比喻。

摩西帶領猶太人出埃及,走到神許諾的流奶之地,一共走了四十年。假設兩地距離是四百公里,這一群耶和華的子民,平均每年走十公里,每天只走路三米,每小時速度為十五厘米,你會問,為什麼走四百公里要四十年嗎?你會奇怪他們走路太慢嗎?你要每隔十五厘米找到摩西的足印才相信《出埃及記》嗎?

情況當然不是如此,摩西帶領族人在曠野流浪,當然不是以「每天靠近十五厘米」的姿態前行,當他們找到環境較好的水源與青草地,會小休數年,到了西奈山,也要停下來等待神頒下十戒。四十年來在荒野飄零,摩西一行人肯定是紥營時間佔較大部分,真正大規模「行軍」的日子,可能四十年來只有幾十天,要找這些從棲息地到另一棲息地之間的「過渡」足印,只佔足印數量的極小比例。

生命的演化路徑也作如是觀,它們並非無時無刻都以固定的緩慢速度演化,當環境穩定不變時,自然選擇會令個體特徵不會出現大變化,考古生物學家找到的化石,形態會很相似。當環境轉變,如冰河期降臨、雨量減少、隕石撞擊地球或新的競爭者出現時,生命的演變會相對急速,但演變至一個適應新環境的狀態後,他們就不需再有大變。

如此,我們對「過渡品種」化石相對少,有另一個很好的解釋:「過渡」化石相對少,不單是因為化石本身極稀有,更是因為品種演化的「過渡期」相對很短,故遺留下來的化石相對更少。一個存活了五千萬年的物種,其特徵的演變可能集中於幾個三數十萬年的段落急速完成 (以地質與生命演化的眼光看,一萬年只是一剎那),「過渡品種」化石自然稀有。正如我們要找尋摩西的足跡,他們的駐紥地較容易找到,但要找到他們在荒野中前行的足跡則相對困難,而且不完整,但我們不會因此就斷言,摩西帶領猶太人出埃及的故事是假的。

[2.2 化石為何稀少?]

化石記錄,不是隨便就有。一般來說,缺乏堅固骨骼組織的生物,或骨骼纖細如雀鳥,在化石中很稀有。保存得最好的化石種類一般是擁有堅硬骨架的海生無脊椎動物。

很多動物幾乎從未在化石中出現過,原因是它們很快被其他動物吃掉或分解。棲息於森林中的動物,化石極稀有,乃是因為森林的泥土與細菌很快把屍骸化灰,循環再用。古生物學家雖發現很多古代人類化石,但從未發現任何人類近親大猩猩的化石,相信正是與猩猩一直生活於森林有關。(遠古人類已走出森林,生活在叢林中,所以能找到化石。)

達爾文手繪生命之樹
試想像,有人在香港行山失足,仆落山坡,失救致死,他幾乎不可能變成化石,因為香港的溫熱天氣,潮濕泥土,土裡的細菌微蟲,很快令血肉之軀化作塵土,骨骼也消化得無影無蹤,根本不可能留下化石。若想死後成為化石,需要埋葬自己於沉積物中,讓數百萬年流逝,岩層的壓力令骨骼石化,再等岩層變動,化石露出地面,才有機會被考古學家發現。

科學家在現存化石中,發現超過二十五萬個生物品種。很多已絕種的大型生物只有一個或數個樣本,很多物種的譜系只有間斷的化石紀錄。

化石記錄的確不完整,幸好這不是演化論的唯一憑證,DNA中基因的排列,也埋藏著數億年來生命變遷的歷史記錄,分子生物學正把這些謎團逐層破解。我們常見演化生物學中的「生命之樹」,每個枝椏的分叉點,都是經過分子生物學家基因排序,仔細繪畫的,絕非是是旦旦畫棵樹。

(演化炒飯之二,待續)


(
化石部分資料來源 Futuyma: Evolutionary Biology )
今天生物學家繪畫之生命之樹

延伸閱讀:

71 comments:

  1. 區先生,感謝你對的學術研究的堅持。請問有沒有關於演化論的好書推介,讓我等普羅大眾也可認識一下如此重要的理論呢?
    先謝過!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 我通常會介紹Richard Dawkins的《自私的基因》

      http://aukalun.blogspot.hk/2009/06/richard-dawkins.html

      這本書並非入門書,但文筆淺顯,由生命起源講到動物性講到博奕論,很精采,當中與「生命演化」概念息息相關。

      我這些不算學術研究,只能算讀書筆記,一些基本概念,我會繼續補充。

      Delete
    2. 呵呵,就看區先生你對錯的事必要糾正的態度,就可見你對學術的認真與執著!請繼續!
      感謝介紹,有空會一讀!

      Delete
    3. 區生, despite of your liking of the book, after skimming through a couple of chapters, I have to give up on it. I don't like the "salesman" pitch and 短話長說 炒埋一碟 style. (One part I read that the author draws "computer" as example... -> 1976 !! It is simply so out-dated !!)

      Just to alert you to spot for "言語偽術" in book (too), in case you re-read it.

      - (A different Anonymous)

      Delete
    4. I would like to remind you that the computer simulation was a classic. And I really want to know the 言語偽術 you mentioned, for I haven't found any after reading several times.

      Delete
    5. IMO, this book is quite good.

      Vital Dust - Life as a Cosmic Imperative
      by Christian de Duve

      中譯 生物決定論
      ISBN: 978-986-6723-54-4

      Delete
    6. 區生, unless I was reading the wrong book, "Computers do not yet play chess as well as human grand masters, ..." is no longer true.

      Also considering computer technologies in pre-1976, Dawkins could have been bluffing and couldn't have tested his ideas with a computer. So he just did the talking part without carrying out actual experiments. (I guess he must have combined "game theory" and "artificial intelligence".)

      Around 1976, computers were huge and locked behind in air-conditioned and dust-clear room. Some terminals were also huge and were more like typewriters. Most probably programs were still submitted to the computer as punch cards, which I don't think you and your blog-fans have ever seen or use one. I cannot remember if graphics terminals were even invented. Biggest problem: No Microsoft Windows, No Graphics and No Internet resources!! The best simulation one may create was through the use of ASCII characters, probably with a grid size of 100x100 or less, drawn on lined computer papers. Computer memory was very limited and one-computer-many-users (so creating fancy simulation and big programs would be quite difficult). Graphics plotters were expensive. No source code library to steal or download, but write-all-yourself. (I hope I haven't burst your "simulation" bubble.)

      Anyways, about 言語偽術, I was fed up with his talk about animal behaviors. Genes, hens, eggs, ... How do one knows what animals think without the ability to talk to them? How could animals at that level be so intelligent to carry out tasks for "natural selection"? So Dawkins used the term "natural selection" as if it was a magic wand or living force in explaining things -> creating logical fallacies.

      Delete
  2. 高皓正錯在他是個基督徒名人的身份,他所提出的言論沒有什麼新意,其實一般普通宗教人仕或非宗教人仕都會想到,只是被一些網民冷嘲熱諷,其他無知網民沒有深思付和,小事化大。以至從此他再發表任何言論都會被近乎網絡欺淩的對待,公道點說有點可憐。
    演化論同樣,在沒有確切證據下,一個普通會反思的年青人都會想到類似的疑問吧,只是不會有大量反對聲音侍候。
    無知網民不計,請各位有識之士或學者,在回應時留點手吧,就當他是個有另類思考的小子,不要帶批判的態度攻擊吧。

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 演化論的確切證據都在,只在乎人們是否嘗試細心了解。
      也沒有留手不留手之謂,順手牽羊,以正視聽,我最惱恨見到人亂講野。

      Delete
  3. 只(願)相信宇宙只有六千年的,能領略「存活了五千萬年……集中於幾個三數十萬年的段落……一萬年只是一剎那」嗎?

    ReplyDelete
  4. >> 生命的演化路徑也作如是觀,它們並非無時無刻都以固定的緩慢速度演化,
    >> 當環境穩定不變時,自然選擇會令個體特徵不會出現大變化,考古生物學家
    >> 找到的化石,形態會很相似。當環境轉變,如冰河期降臨、雨量減少、隕石撞
    >> 擊地球或新的競爭者出現時,生命的演變會相對急速,但演變至一個適應新
    >> 環境的狀態後,他們就不需再有大變。

    DNA 是每一代都 mutate,所以無話是否在以"緩慢速度演化"。"緩慢" 要在 "急速" 出現後,才顯出對比。


    >>當環境穩定不變時,自然選擇會令個體特徵不會出現大變化

    這不一定成立。(例如獅子+老虎在大自然結合,便會出現基因突變。) 又甚麼是"自然選擇"? 這類含糊字眼完全不必要。


    >>生命的演變會相對急速,但演變至一個適應新環境的狀態後,他們就不需再有大變。

    為甚麼生命會急速演變? 因為出現基因突變。沒有基因突變,"改變" 也不會帶到下一代。

    甚麼是"適應新環境" 及 "不需再有大變"? DNA 是不會"感覺到"環境改變而去"適應" 或 作出"大變"。 除了 reproduction 外, DNA 是處於被動和衰退狀態。環境突變時,DNA 祇在有影響它的元素(化學劑、光、能量等等)出現時,才出現 chemical reaction 以致基因變動。所以, 環境突變不一定引致基因變動。(動物的手和腳轉變成魚鰭狀,也需要動物本身產生化學信號去改動基因。)


    Thus everything about evolution is based on "chemistry".


    [上述提到的含糊/抽象字眼和概念,想必是源自正本"演化論"。我認為他們有誤導性,也容易產生邏輯問題。最好唔用。]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 搵個位搭嘴:

      Thus everything about evolution is based on "chemistry" -- true only if "chemistry" can produce a single cell that can reproduce.

      It is like putting features into magician's hat and getting a dove out from it. A clever trick or a magic?

      Delete
    2. 嗱嗱嗱, 香港仔講英文, 我諗 native speaker 通常會講 get sth out of it, 而唔係直譯 from it.

      Delete
    3. So do you imply that a cell wasn't made of chemical elements?! Wow. If that is so, it would be new to me.

      Delete
    4. No doubt Shakespeare's script is written in words, but if a few monkeys hitting keys at random on typewriters for an infinite amount of time can write up a script, it would be new to me too.

      Delete
    5. 九唔搭八... a logical fallacy.

      Delete
    6. 啱嘅啱嘅, 領悟能力呢樣嘢, 人人唔同.

      阿九話 所有 基因突變 係化學反應 DNA1 + 化學劑1 -> DNA2 + 化學劑2, 係細胞化學, 唔係創造論.

      阿八問 生命 純綷係 化學反應? 响實驗室制造 磷脂質分子, 分子一面親水, 一面親油, 好易吖, 即係洗潔精啫. 但係 實驗室制造 唔造 到 細胞膜? 細胞之所以係細胞, 因為佢細, 仲係包住包水. 細胞膜 就係 好似金菇菜, 粒粒份子企起身, 兩層, 尖頭對腳. 咁就可以賣廣告, 鎖住水份, 自信返晒嚟. chemistry? physics 建築系 多d 喎.

      細胞膜 都唔係 保鮮紙, 光滑一包. 有窿嫁, 有d 份子可以出出入入, 有d 唔得....

      仲未講到 DNA 呵, 細胞裏面有序到 逆晒熵, 化學反應 熵 增加噃.

      九搭唔搭八? 仲有七七六六噃.



      Delete
    7. 啱嘅啱嘅, 唔明英文係啱嫁, 因為估我打錯字好難嫁.

      有人模擬地球40億年前, 由氮氧碳 by chance 變成有機物, 再由有機物 by chance 變成植物. 如果咁都得, 咪即係將 d 羽毛 feather 放入魔術帽 然後變隻 白鴿 出嚟.

      Delete
    8. Through my observation, 演化論 is simply (or "just") an application of laws of Chemistry and Physics (and Biology, if you like) which are part of the outcome of 創造論. Thus it isn't as "magical" as 演化論 believers would like to think. (Of course, other 創造論 outcomes are relativity, different types of geometry, probably parallel universe, worm hole, Star Trek, Spock...) Do you understand me now?!

      If "turning 氮氧碳 into 有機物" was so easy, Newton or other extremely clever scientists should have done so a long long time ago. Even with our current knowledge, we still cannot grow a matured apple in 24 hours. So let those who witnessed the first-ever "氮氧碳 into 有機物" event tells us that God doesn't exist.

      Delete
    9. 先道歉,昨天語帶輕挑。因為有幾位無名氏,而用上 九唔搭八 並不十分客氣。

      無意反對第一位無名氏演化論是基因突變的說法,不過基因突變只是演化論的機制,而不是演化論。有了基因工程,莫說 missing link, 新品種也可以制造出來。可能不是好比喻,考慮{1,2,3,4,5,...整數集合}一堆積木,把玩 building blocks, 演化論是1-> 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 5 -> 8, Fibonacci Numbers 有一定規律。但另一小朋友,走進來看見相同顏色積木,2, 4, 6, 8 偶數集放在一起,說看,我也懂得玩數學教授的積木呢。背後意義不同。

      如果不是 九唔搭八 無名氏,我可能說唔識,搭唔到嘴。回家細想了一晚,關鍵詞:生命、演化、創造,可以講一萬個字,然後自己話自己,九唔搭八。所以細想了一晚,仍然是:唔識,搭唔到嘴。

      Delete
    10. "九唔搭八" 並非 "不十分客氣". "九唔搭八" is one type of the many "logical fallacies" people made in doing arguments. This fallacy has been committed by 思歪 so often that Hong Kong people should have no problem identifying it.

      "When you ask 思歪 about 政制, he replies about 民生" -> 思歪 would be committing a "九唔搭八" logical fallacy.

      Then, of course, I just made up the name "九唔搭八". But the rule is the same -> "九唔搭八".

      You were talking about something not related to previous sub-post (i.e. not align with the context), so you committed the "九唔搭八" logical fallacy. Agree?!

      ---

      基因突變 is not a 演化論的機制 (but 基因變化 is).

      基因變化 happens every second in your body in every cell no matter if reproduction takes place. (Thus some people get skin cancer, etc.)

      基因變化 is the core of "演化論" that our current technology show that it is observable, reproducible and manageable. And thus people across different religions don't have much disagreement about it. 基因突變 is.. just part of... the 基因變化 design.

      It is not like the theory of "natural selection" which is still very vague, still being observed and scrutinized.

      Delete
    11. 如果你認為我唔明 基因突變 is not a 演化論的機制 (but 基因變化 is) (*1);
      如果你認為我 talking about something not related to previous sub-post(*1);
      咁,的確沒有甚麼討論空間!

      討論 不是 about win or lose, 而是 inspiring, sharing known and unknown.

      BTW, within context 我原意 係 "無意反對第一位無名氏 演化論 是 基因 related". 不過我經常打錯字,於是 copy and paste 某作者:"為甚麼生命會急速演變? 因為出現基因突變。沒有基因突變,"改變" 也不會帶到下一代"

      祝 百戰百勝!

      (*1) 我對於該句子所有字都識,但不代表認同。引用, nothing within context, simply literally.

      Delete
    12. I wrote this in another article:

      The purpose of 1st year university is to re-learn the "proper" terms, language and attitude for handling scholarly matters. Without using them, one may talk about an "elephant" but actually refer to a "rat".


      Effective communication requires both parties to use mutually acceptable and agreed terminology. So you may find my overly emphasizing in using "proper" terms and word orders, but it was for a purpose -> to avoid logical fallacies.


      Logical analysis could be a final tools to resolve disagreements on many issues (, particularly religion matters), and detecting "言語偽術", e.g. in "natural selection" of "演化論".


      Your saying: "我對於該句子所有字都識,但不代表認同。"

      My opinion (not criticizing about you): If one 不認同 on something but doesn't say so, that is not effective communication. Even a short "不認同" could end a discussion showing a state of "stalemate" on the topic.

      That could be the reason of the "July 01 Victoria Park protest" every year (even though not effective at all) -> to say it out loud of our "不認同" !


      >> "百戰百勝!"
      Writing so much and wasting so much time is to 給 "區生" 面子 (哈哈! You should be proud of this). So thanks for the saying ("百戰百勝"), but I don't really need that. I have no interest in blogging. But **進化論** is too big a topic not to raise my "不認同".

      Delete
    13. June 18, 2013 at 8:44 PM 的無名君所言,顯示閣下並不認識「自然選擇」之理 (natural selection),故有誤解。

      宗教問題,信與不信,屬個人感覺,隨便說說無妨;科學問題,不能講感覺。

      Delete
    14. Natural selection basically tells us that we are here because the other species died. Period.

      But when it is used as a "cause" for "genetic change", it doesn't make sense, as only chemicals, light, energies, etc. could change DNAs. "Natural selection" doesn't exist as a real / physical entity. For example, in Dawkins book, he said "Humans and baboons have evolved by natural selection." "If you look as the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish."

      Who are the masters of "natural selection"? We, and the other animals, plants, insects who created the "natural selection" phenomenon. But under "natural selection" theory, we (and the other animals, plants, insects) become the subordinate of it.

      This is crazy logic.

      I would accept, if the sentence is changed into something similar to this:

      "If you look as the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that came through the natural selection should be selfish."


      I don't even know how to rephrase "Humans and baboons have evolved by natural selection."

      That is "言語偽術".

      Delete
    15. 上一段回應,頭兩句皆錯,顯示你對演化論的最基本理論完全誤解。

      Delete
    16. We (all the living species) are still living, therefore we are the fittest at this moment of time, under the "Natural Selection" phenomenon.

      Delete
  5. 關於 Missing-Link,已經說過。在此不贅。

    >> 反演化論者常掛在口邊的「質疑」。但他們往往不求甚解,隨口就問。

    反神創論的何常唔係?都是比此比此嗟。所以區生也不必太著意了。

    The Truth will manifest itself without our help. This speaks for both groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "反神創論的何常[嘗]唔係?都是比[彼]此比[彼]此嗟[啫]。"

      請舉例說明.

      Delete
    2. Google and you may find tons.

      Delete
  6. 小弟不敢說一定沒有神,但就算有,祂的能力也是有限的,絕非無所不能,否則,天下間又哪會有這麼多悲劇?

    其他宗教不敢說,但小弟對基督教和天主教最反感的,是不管一個人做過多少壞事,不管是天大的壞事,惡貫滿盈也好,只要其臨終一刻相信耶穌/上帝,那就得救...

    超級殺人王:「啊...我要死喇,一生偷呃拐騙姦淫虜掠殺人放火,萬一真係有地獄點算?咩話?信耶穌就得救?所有罪都得赦免?梗係臨急抱佛腳啦!呃...唔係,係臨急抱耶穌腳,咩話?上帝至真?唔好理咁多,總之邊個神救我令我唔使落地獄就得啦!神父,我信主喇,快啲幫我受洗...得咗!鳴哈哈哈哈哈哈哈,你班低能仔,使鬼成世做好人?臨死懺悔就得啦,鳴哈哈哈哈哈哈哈...啊...」雙眼一翻

    神父:「又一個人得救了,不管大家做了什麼,主都會原諒你的」

    成千上萬受害者家屬......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "啟示錄"一起首就講"七教會",耶穌都親口罵某些教會中人。你還不明白嗎?

      Delete
    2. 耶穌罵的某些教會中人?肯定唔係鬧基督教或天主教啦(起碼耶穌死後才有基督教同天主教)。我唔係教徒,未睇過啟示錄,你應該引用一下某些章節,我唔明白你講啟示錄同七教會有何含義

      那閣下對於只要臨死前信主,不管其人做過多少喪盡天良的事都得赦免有何看法?

      閣下同意這說法,臨死前信主就行

      閣下不同意這說法,這是某些教會用以吸納信徒的行徑,雖不恰當但可接受

      閣下不同意這說法,這是某些教會用以吸納信徒的卑劣行徑,應予以遣責,以正視聽

      Delete
    3. "耶穌罵的某些教會中人?" Yes.
      "肯定唔係鬧基督教或天主教啦" No. They are 基督教 **及** 天主教 的 "教會中人". Other people are on another "queue".

      Please read 啟示錄 chapter 1 on-line.

      "閣下同意這說法,臨死前信主就行" It depends on the genuineness of the 悔改, which God should have no problem identifying. (You have to realize that a genuine 悔改 may already be a very big and deep punishment. See the recent news about a late apology from a 文化大革命 紅衛兵.)

      "閣下不同意這說法,這是某些教會用以吸納信徒的行徑,雖不恰當但可接受" No further comment. Ask a priest/pastor near you.

      "閣下不同意這說法,這是某些教會用以吸納信徒的卑劣行徑,應予以遣責,以正視聽" No further comment. Ask a priest/pastor near you.


      All will be judged whether you are a Christian or not. One shouldn't envy people who 臨死前信主.

      臨死前信主 is still better than never 信主. Right?

      Delete
  7. 其實演化論與創造論是不是都在乎相信呢?
    當科學家發現大量證據去支持演化論,仍不能看見事實的全部,仍有不可信之處,有人信有人唔信。
    反過來,大量基督徒會見證有神,從而相信創造,不過不能顯示出有神俾人睇,有人信有人唔信。

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 其實演化論與「天狗食日論」是不是都在乎相信呢?

      當科學家發現大量證據去支持演化論,仍不能看見事實的全部,仍有不可信之處,有人信有人唔信。

      反過來,大量人見證有「天狗」食日,從而相信有「天狗」,不過不能顯示出有「天狗」俾人睇,有人信有人唔信。

      Delete
    2. 如果事事都是抱著「有人信有人唔信」的態度,那麼我們如何判別是非真假?

      Delete
    3. 我意思不是說事事都抱這態度,我亦相信是非真假就是是非真假,不會因為有人信有人唔信去判別。不過我接受現實就是,我們能知道的證據仍然有限,我們亦沒有時光機回到過去親眼看看真相過程。即使是現時所發生的事件,都可能因為證據不足,只能相信是非常接近真相,不能肯定是真相。
      若果有人唔信,我們所知的證據不能說服他們,就只能接受這就是“爭議事件”,是非真假卻不會變,只待有日能水落石出。
      所以我說在乎相信。

      Delete
  8. 區生,要欣賞 Richard Dawkins 的 "言語偽術",請看看 Dawkins 的比喻 (區生的版本) 並比較聖經原文:

    民數記 14:26-35

    耶和華對摩西、亞倫說:
    「這惡會眾向我發怨言,我忍耐他們要到幾時呢?以色列人向我所發的怨言,我都聽見了。
    你們告訴他們,耶和華說:『我指著我的永生起誓,我必要照你們達到我耳中的話待你們。
    你們的屍首必倒在這曠野,並且你們中間凡被數點、從二十歲以外、向我發怨言的,
    必不得進我起誓應許叫你們住的那地;惟有耶孚尼的兒子迦勒和嫩的兒子約書亞才能進去。
    但你們的婦人孩子,就是你們所說、要被擄掠的,我必把他們領進去,他們就得知你們所厭棄的那地。
    至於你們,你們的屍首必倒在這曠野;
    你們的兒女必在曠野飄流四十年,擔當你們淫行的罪,直到你們的屍首在曠野消滅。
    按你們窺探那地的四十日,一年頂一日,你們要擔當罪孽四十年,就知道我與你們疏遠了,
    我─耶和華說過,我總要這樣待這一切聚集敵我的惡會眾;他們必在這曠野消滅,在這裏死亡。』」

    ----

    所以他們不是直線而行,亦不敢在四十年限期前到達應許之地,祇能到處流浪。

    作為學者,Dawkins 應該公正地引用原文或中肯地說明其中原因。但 Dawkins 選擇扭曲原文,並有失學者身份、挖苦地說:

    >> 摩西帶領猶太人出埃及,走到神許諾的流奶之地,一共走了四十年。假設兩地距離是四百公里,
    >> 這一群耶和華的子民,平均每年走十公里,每天只走路三米,每小時速度為十五厘米,你會問,
    >> 為什麼走四百公里要四十年嗎?你會奇怪他們走路太慢嗎?

    這是對不熟識聖經的讀者不公道及刻意誤導。

    ----

    當然,耶和華有否跟摩西、亞倫直接說話,又或是原文中,是否有人刻意誤導、誤導對象是誰,二十一世紀的聖經讀者應該自行查證和思考。

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 這個比喻與耶和華對摩西說過什麼完全無關。

      想講的是,定居之地,足迹易找,流徒之時,足迹難尋。無論聖經說耶和華說過什麼,意思都是一樣。


      Delete
    2. Of course it is related and is very relevant. If you read 民數記 chapter 15, "people" actually went into battle trying to enter 應許之地 but failed, and took it as God's will. So they didn't spend 40 yrs to get there, but only went to 流浪 after failing the battle. So Dawkins' description was not bible-wise accurate (no matter if you take the bible as literature or holy book) -> and his remark of "為什麼走四百公里要四十年嗎?" just committed a logical fallacy.

      Also, the way a person writes shows his/her character. Dawkins as a scholar should have no problem using a better 比喻 without causing untrue or negative impression or causing 刻意誤導, unless that was his purpose. If it was a student thesis, it would not be acceptable. But since it was by Dawkins, should we accept it?!

      Finally, if Dawkins wrote negative things about the Mxslims or females, it could have been construed as discrimination or other crime.

      ---

      I cannot remember which year on US TV. From my recollection, I think NASA captured some images showing some kind of man-made migration path around Red Sea area through satellite, which could probably be the "exodus path". (It doesn't matter if it was the real one for our discussion.) My point is that Dawkins's explanation doesn't void the possibility that there could be other means to locate the missing-links. (Such as in the current case, rather that fossils, we have got satellite images.)

      Thus your claim of "流徒之時,足迹難尋" has just broken down !!


      P.S. That is Dawkins' writing style and is full of "言語偽術" (-> logical fallacy).

      Delete
    3. 無名氏先生,你自己的說法根本和 Dawkins 沒有分別。
      Dawkins 正正想說明,摩西出紅海,整個過程是四十年,實際上並不是四十年每一刻都在行走,而是像遊牧民族,走到另一個有水有草的地方紥營居住,而移動的時間很短,真正行走的時間可能只有一兩年。
      這和你自己所說的有甚麼分別?有何刻意誤導?

      Dawkins 想指出的只不過是:演化也是一樣,突變或者漸變的時間可能只是一代或幾代之間完成,那麼演變的時間可能只是幾萬年之間,甚至更短。而化石年期之間的差距,可以是幾十萬年至幾百萬年。

      這樣你也不能夠理解的話,再爭辯下去有甚麼意思呢?你腦袋中已經裝滿了相當嚴重的偏見,別人再怎樣說你也無法聽入耳。

      再者,Dawkins 對伊斯蘭教的教義一樣有辯論過,他並不是只針對基督教的,而是任何宗教一些否定科學的見解。那是Aljazeera 半島電視台的訪問,你可以上網找。另外,在網上也可以看到他在牛津和英國聖公會大主教的辯論,校長彭定康是主持。從你的文字,我可以說你根本沒有看過或讀過多少 Dawkins 的東西,只不過是道聽途說。Dawkins 他和神職人員之間辯論,也從來都是著重理性、實證和辯論,從來沒有批評他人的人格,每次辯論都是君子之爭。他也絕不會否認歷史上有不少信教的人是好人或曾經從信仰中得到啟迪,但他強烈反對的是教會對教育的干預,如教會學校灌輸一些錯誤的知識和否定科學,和教會對道德的保守教條。你的反駁卻已經接近人身攻擊了。你若果覺得自己這麼有道理,留言何不公開自己的姓名?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. "摩西出紅海,整個過程是四十年" is already incorrect, no matter if they were moving one inch per year or one inch per second. According to bible 民數記, "摩西出紅海" took a much much shorter time than "四十年" to reach the border of 應許之地.

      To avoid logical fallacy, the phrase should have been said as "猶太人進入應許之地,整個過程是四十年".

      Can you see the different? One with 100% untrue information, the other without any logical fallacy. I cannot see any reason for Dawkins' failing to re-phrase the 比喻 to make it "logically legal". It could have been so easy!

      ---
      "演變的時間可能只是幾萬年之間,甚至更短" is already false.

      According to evolutionary biology, 演變 (such as DNA mutation) happens every second at DNA-level.

      It is your conception that 演變 would take 幾萬年 most probably because you were considering the change of animal forms, rather than DNA.

      ---
      According to wiki, "Dawkins is an atheist". (So he would challenge 伊斯蘭教... naturally. So he would 針對 every 宗教... naturally)

      ---
      >> 我可以說你根本沒有看過或讀過多少 Dawkins 的東西,只不過是道聽途說

      You have committed a logical fallacy, as you had put your words into my mouth.


      ---
      >> 你的反駁卻已經接近人身攻擊了。

      Where was my "反駁"? What did I say?

      So 扭曲原文 is OK and it is something 學者 could/should do? Using biased phrases and creating implication is OK and it is something 學者 could/should do?

      If your answer is "OK", then what the fuss about 思歪 (or chinese-way of communism), even though he is not even a 學者.

      ---
      >> 你若果覺得自己這麼有道理,留言何不公開自己的姓名?

      My saying is already my signature. I defend on what I understand unless they are proven wrong. Also, this has nothing to do with my opinion about Dawkins. (-> could be another logical fallacy.)

      So a name would make a difference on logical analysis? I don't understand.

      ---

      I read Dawkins' book "The God Delusion". What I found was that he hasn't understand the bible fully. Christians lost in any debates with him only because they didn't understand the bible sufficiently enough (i.e. 功夫唔夠). But this doesn't imply that Dawkins' standpoint/arguments that gave him the winning was 100% correct (I mean "against any religion").

      So what is your point?!

      ---
      May I ask whether you can find evidence in the book of Genesis to counter-prove "Genesis" Chaper1-style 的 神創論 using verses in the book of Genesis? I can. Can you? Can Dawkins?

      Delete
    6. 小小意見,留名較好。
      >> 你若果覺得自己這麼有道理,留言何不公開自己的姓名?
      My saying is already my signature -- right only if there is no need to trace references.
      不留名,隨興有隨興的方便。
      但曾跟某些無名氏討論甲,幾經辛苦說明非甲;改天討論乙,無名氏仍然搬出甲。如果是同一人,那是閣下的事(偏執而且自暴其短),但因無法證明此無名氏同彼無名氏,結果又重覆甲...煩厭。

      Delete
    7. I didn't know I would have spent so much time on this/these topic(s), as otherwise I would have created a small sign to end each sub-post. I did try to put "things" into my sub-post for easy identification though. Maybe I failed.

      Delete
    8. To 張離

      You said:

      這樣你也不能夠理解的話,再爭辯下去有甚麼意思呢?你腦袋中已經裝滿了相當嚴重的偏見,別人再怎樣說你也無法聽入耳。

      I say:

      This is your opinion. And these type of comments shouldn't appear in effective communication. Besides, it is a logical fallacy.

      If you had said the right thing, I would have agreed with you. I accept Evolutionary Biology (thus DNA-level 演化論) and (the non-Genesis-Chapter-1-type) 神創論 but not "進化論" (and not "natural selection").

      And because of these, I am "腦袋中已經裝滿了相當嚴重的偏見,別人再怎樣說你也無法聽入耳。"?? How Chinese-communism-like-criticism language.

      That reminds me of 丁子霖 being called "患上斯德哥爾摩症候群". So very illogical.

      ---

      You said:

      Dawkins 想指出的只不過是:演化也是一樣,突變或者漸變的時間可能只是一代或幾代之間完成,那麼演變的時間可能只是幾萬年之間,甚至更短。而化石年期之間的差距,可以是幾十萬年至幾百萬年。

      I say:
      Dawkins' saying is vague. As no one saw how the 演化 happened, he could have said anything. But I know that the life span of each animal is very short comparing to Earth. So 演變的時間 available to each animal for "突變" has to be very short too.

      As for "漸變", scientists need to figure out the elements which have caused such "漸變", and how did it progressively happens across generations of the animal.

      Dawkins said one thing on 1976. As of 2013, please let the scientists tell us what they find, then let us each decide what to believe.

      ---

      Also, this sub-post is about "言語偽術" and "民數記" , your mentioning "演化也是一樣...." is out of context. Should I take it as "九唔搭八" logical fallacy or not?!

      Delete
  9. 謝謝張離的解說。

    致樓上的無名君:

    「摩西出紅海」於文中,用作「流浪」的比喻。你明白什麼是比喻嗎?

    舊的電腦計算速度慢,不代表錯。很多經書也很舊,我們當覺得他充滿智慧。

    那電腦模擬實驗,不是Dawkins做的,他引述一位叫Axelord的學者的研究,建立了經典的博奕論規則。

    動物的演化,如果我們不能「問動物」,就不可信,那所有生物學、歷史學、神學,都不可信。

    我們希望,所有論辯,都應該講道理的。

    ReplyDelete
  10. 區生,

    >> 「摩西出紅海」於文中,用作「流浪」的比喻。你明白什麼是比喻嗎?

    "刻意誤導" 就是 "刻意誤導". This is how logical analysis works. If you make such 比喻 in a court case, the judge (or lawyer on the opposite side) could ask you to withdraw it or re-phrase it.

    I just showed you that there are chances that Dawkins' 比喻 might not stand for testing.

    Putting anything "false" into a 比喻 already makes the 比喻 "false". This is how "logic" works.

    >> 舊的電腦計算速度慢,不代表錯。

    You has just committed a logical fallacy. I had never said anything like "舊的電腦計算速度慢"->(i.e. implying)"代表錯". I only said that technology had changed so much since 1976, that some of the saying in Dawkins' book no longer valid.

    About bluffing, his talk on "world simulation" (simulation of cities, etc.) showed me that he was bluffing (at least at that part), **after considering** technology of computer science at pre-1976 time.

    (BTW, there is no "right or wrong" about bluffing, unless the contents of the bluffing is incorrect. Then there will be a logical fallacy.)

    >> 電腦模擬實驗

    I am still trying to recollect about "graphics terminals" in pre-1976. Probably the graphics terminal at that time was "vector drawing" terminal and was like "radar" monitor as shown in old movies.

    >> 博奕論規則

    So Dawkins drew Game theory into his talk, as I said in my post.

    >> 動物的演化,如果我們不能「問動物」,就不可信,

    I didn't say so. Thus you have committed another logical fallacy.

    It is not about "可信" or "不可信". Since we cannot 「問動物」, we can only have very limited means to study them. But you cannot force your idea to the animal (which will be a logical fallacy) to explain their behaviors (for example, to claim that their behaviors was due to "natural selection". Who knows sometimes we human also do stupid things that shouldn't be due to "natural selection", I hope...).

    And Dawkins' way was like this: (as a 比喻) On the way to prove that there is such a thing as "natural selection", he claims that "natural selection" shows us this and that.

    Thus it is a mix-up of statements, arguments and conclusions.

    One has to build up a scientific case to gather and analyze the data, to state the hypothesis and experiment conclusion, without bias.

    As far as science go, no one really know how "hens" think about their "eggs" and "genes".

    >> 動物的演化 (,如果我們不能「問動物」),就不可信, 那所有生物學、歷史學、神學,都不可信。

    This is another form of logical fallacy: 動物的演化不可信, implying 所有生物學、歷史學、神學,都不可信.

    And I haven't said that 動物的演化不可信.

    Whether you may or may not 「問動物」, doesn't help draw conclusion on "動物的演化 -> 就不可信" or "動物的演化 -> 可信".

    Evolutionary biology shows that 動物的演化 happens at DNA level. And 動物 has no understanding of Genes, DNA, 演化論... Whether you may or may not 「問動物」 doesn't change that fact that evolutionary biology already shows how 動物的演化 happens at DNA level.

    ---

    Logical analysis is done line by line with consideration of context, but without considering "who the author is". My comments on Dawkins' book was based on such skill which is also part of "science".

    I have been 講緊道理 and show you different possibilities. But you have been confusing me.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 你知道什麼是比喻嗎?

      A:「我真係一個笨蛋。」
      B反駁:「你不是一隻蛋,所以你不是笨蛋。」

      *** *** ***

      'no longer valid' 不是「錯」的意思嗎?

      *** *** ***

      你句句開口就說 logical fallacy,其實你大部分指控是對事實的不同意,非logical fallacy。

      Delete
    2. Please find a book on "Arguments" to verify if I misused the term "logical fallacy" and applied it unjustly to any of you.

      ---

      A:「我真係一個笨蛋。」
      B反駁:「你不是一隻蛋,所以你不是笨蛋。」

      Two sentences -> I would take it as an argument rather than 比喻.

      耶穌 related 天國 to 種子 was a 比喻. Referring the sun as 咸蛋黃 was a 比喻. Referring a lady's hair as "waterfall" was a 比喻.

      Your example might not be a 比喻, because you and I know what a "笨蛋" is, and more importantly, it carries a commonly agreed meaning.

      ---

      "No longer valid" is not 「錯」的意思. Your ID card is not longer valid -> meaning "錯" ?? No way, linguistically.

      "No longer valid" simply means that the thing is outdated. It may carry a meaning that "it used to be correct, but now it is not." So it is different with a pure 「錯」, as "no longer valid" carry an implicit meaning which may not be found in 「錯」.

      ---
      "其實你大部分指控是對事實的不同意"

      You have committed another logical fallacy -> the "you-are-putting-words-into-my-mouth"-type logical fallacy.

      What "指控"?!

      For example, you said: "舊的電腦計算速度慢,不代表錯。"

      Context-wise you implied that I had said something about "舊的電腦計算" 就是 "錯". Did I? If I did, please show me where. If I didn't, your sentence "舊的電腦計算速度慢,不代表錯。" created a problem. If I ignored it, it might create a misunderstanding, and it might also mean that I might have I agreed with your words "舊的電腦計算速度慢,不代表錯。", which could/could not be true.

      Do I want to accept such implication? No, I did not.

      In pre-1976 computers, "modeling the world" would not be as easy.

      Thus I showed "doubts", not implying "慢" as "錯". [Could you run the latest Microsoft Office on a pre-Windows computer?]

      ---

      >> 你句句開口就說 logical fallacy

      I said so only when I located a logical fallacy. When this happens, it means that the discussion has a logical error, and that we should backup to correct that sentence, as otherwise the discussion would get even more complicated, tangled up, or undesirable.

      I wonder how you detected 思歪's "言語偽術"? By pure instinct?

      Delete
    3. //耶穌 related 天國 to 種子 was a 比喻. Referring the sun as 咸蛋黃 was a 比喻. Referring a lady's hair as "waterfall" was a 比喻.

      Your example might not be a 比喻, because you and I know what a "笨蛋" is, and more importantly, it carries a commonly agreed meaning.//

      「四十年」、「流浪」、「定居」,都是你所說的 'commonly agreed meaning'

      Delete
    4. 咁 "耶穌 related 天國 to 種子 was a 比喻. Referring the sun as 咸蛋黃 was a 比喻. Referring a lady's hair as "waterfall" was a 比喻" 有無錯?

      咁對於 "「四十年」、「流浪」、「定居」" 的解釋你有無異議?


      例如 "強積金" 一詞是否"比喻",關鍵在於它的起源。"笨蛋" 一詞的起源,可能是"比喻",但我不是中文詞彙專家,不知道,所以不能決定。

      Delete
  11. Natural selection means the most adaptable has higher possibility to spread their genes. That is because: 1. the less adaptable might be killed by competing animals, famine, climate changes and natural disasters, thus only those who are more adaptable remains. But those who adapts to one climate period might be not adaptable to another kind of climate. That's one of the reason why mammoth dominates the ice age but disappeared after that (also due to hunting by human). 2. the more attractive and more resourceful ones usually get higher chance to get into sex and thus have a higher possibility to pass their genes to the next generation. "How "hens" think about their "eggs" and "genes"." - does it matter? Whether human are conscious or not about evolution, evolution happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can easily find counter-examples : 福島海嘯受害者、香港十一船難受害者. Did they fail the "natural selection" process because they failed to learn "swimming"? Otherwise they would have better chance to spread their genes?

      People are gene-wise prone to develop cancers. So these people are inferior, causing them having lower change to produce good-gene offspring?

      被人類虐殺的貓貓(及其他動物). Did they fail to receive good genes or adapt to run like tigers to escape humans, and thus being eliminated meets the "natural selection" criteria?

      About pollution causing some types of insects and plants to be exterminated soon, could we attribute the phenomenon to "natural selection", as they cannot evolve fast enough to adapt to human's living style?

      Now the polar bear is also going to extinct soon due to global warming, so the polar bears fail to adapt, as they should grow genes to learn to think fast to move to live in the zoo?!

      ---

      "Higher/lower chance" and "higher/lower possibility" can be part of "言語偽術".

      ---

      I am not trying to argue, but with these examples, I hope you could understand why I still don't "believe" in the "Natural Selection" theory, even though it claims to explain certain natural phenomenon.

      "Higher" & "lower" have no fix definitions. So higher chance doesn't imply that one will definitely get the chance to spread genes. Lower chance doesn't imply that one could not spread genes vigorously.

      咁即係乜都無講過啦 -> another logical fallacy.

      (Would someone argue that the theory had to be applied to the whole race of same animal type?)

      If the theory implies that people/animals/insects/plants could change the genes to survive, then I don't see how 福島海嘯 would make me (or other humans) learn to improve my (our) genes to adapt to future 海嘯.

      (In reality, with such short life span, where could we [people/animals/insects/plants] gain the knowledge and method to adapt?? Would the "Natural Selection" process teach us?)

      If the theory does not imply that people/animals/insects/plants could change the genes to survive, 咁即係又係乜都無講過啦.

      At the time 進化論 was invented, DNA-theory was not established. Thus 進化論 could get away with anything, leaving everyone in continuous debates.

      After DNA-theory are established, we have to tools to explain things much better, more logical, and less vague than 進化論.

      ---

      You said: 'How "hens" think about their "eggs" and "genes"." - does it matter?'

      Of course it matters. It is because Dawkins (in 1976) talked as if he knew how the hens care about the eggs and genes -> that could be a logical fallacy which would have voided his claim. (So could he or could he not able to communicate with hens, to understand if hens really care about their genes?)

      To me, that is an arguable part of "言語偽術" in the "natural selection" theory.

      Delete
    2. You keep accusing others of logical fallacy and yet you are making basic errors in your argument, and suggesting flawed examples. You are confusing individuals with a population, or an entire species.

      Certainly there are individual humans who torture and kill kittens, but as a whole, humans do not hunt domesticated cats. But given our resources, if we as humans were to do so, then yes, domesticated cats will become extinct in no time. We have hunted countless species to extinction.

      There are individuals who drown at sea because they cannot swim. But as a whole, the human species can learn to swim and has the intelligence and tools to live at sea. If we did not develop that ability, and if all of a sudden the planet was flooded with water and there is no land to live on, then we would suffer drastic reduction in our numbers, possibly to the point of extinction too.

      Polar bears will probably become extinct very soon, very sadly. Does this mean they need to evolve and adapt? This is the wrong question to ask. Nothing an animal species as a whole can do short-term is going to help it avoid extinction. Rather, the ones that will remain in the new climate or environment are those sub-populations that underwent mutations and adopted new survival mechanisms over the course of time. Eventually they can become so different from their original species, they can be classified as a new ones. Recent studies have shown that some groups of grizzly bears share DNA fragments with polar bears, which suggest that the polar bears became grizzlies after moving south and interbreeding with other bears. This change might have helped that particular population survive in their environment.

      Mutations don't always have to help. Populations that mutate in undesirable ways (in ways that make them more prone to death in a changed environment) will die off more quickly. Many species of island birds have lost the ability to fly and developed strong legs for running. This mutation was useful (at least harmless) before the arrival of humans and other imported animals such as dogs and cats; many species soon went extinct when the environment changed. Those birds that could still fly were able to avoid the same fate. And that is natural selection at work.

      Delete
    3. You may look up the list of possible logical fallacies and check and see if I had mis-accused anyone above.

      ---

      >> "And that is natural selection at work."

      which is bxllshit. I don't believe nature show favoritism to some animals over others.

      Obviously the "natural selection" is so limited and extremely useless despite of a big name.

      If the weather gets too cold, some unfit animals die, that is "natural selection" at work. If the weather gets too warm, the other unfit animals die, that is also "natural selection" at work. If someday, all polar bears in nature die, it is because "natural selection" is at work. Polar bears in the zoo can survive, because "natural selection" is at work. If all species of dogs and cats get eaten, it manifests that "natural selection" is at work. When disasters happened and killed some races of humans, thousands of years later, people may claim that it is also "natural selection" at work. How convenient!

      If each person has a distinctive gene pool, then each of 福島海嘯受害者、香港十一船難受害者 died because "natural selection" was at work.

      Thus the "natural selection" theory is pure garbage. My conclusion is still that it is "言語偽術". Period.

      Delete
    4. Have you heard of random vector? Each individual's movement might be random, but the overall direction of a group can be estimated. That's how natural selection works. A bear might be killed by car accident with no reason. But a million bears hunted by human to extinction, or couldn't survive to climate change is another thing. There are random events that lead to slight changes in population of a group, but only a big event can lead to big increase or decline of population, e.g. industrial revolution is the turning point which human population grows exponentially, and this could lead to a bigger disaster to human beings in the future (that the planet cannot feed human species any more and thus human would be extinct). Wish you live happily ever after, with your prince or princess in your dream. Reality is too much for you to understand.

      Delete
    5. Emperor Kowloon,

      Are you trying to move the target? Do you know that you are doing "random walk"? You know what a "random walk" is?

      Tell me "what natural selection is" and "how natural selection really works" in your own words, examples and pictures, as obviously there is a chance that I might not be as smart and educated as you on that subject.

      I showed you examples on how Dawkins used "言語偽術" to package up the term "natural selection", and what I think "how things really work" through scientific means and attitude. Please counter-prove me in the same way.

      ----
      If I believed in "進化論", I would say these:

      Why cares about the consequence of "industrial revolution"? "Natural selection" will be at work to do the job for us. When we run out of food, a big group of humans would die of hunger. So what. That only manifests how effective "natural selection" at work is. "Natural selection" will bring "nature" back to balance.

      ----

      Back to reality:

      That is how stupid "進化論"/"Natural Selection" is.

      For "Natural Selection" to work, do you have a survey of population of all animals so that future generations may benefit?

      Since the future generations won't know if a bear is killed in car accidents, or due to "natural selection" at work. So please document the death of every bear/animal from now on for future generations, so that they may enjoy the magnificent work of "Natural Selection" at work.

      In reality, human's 出路 is "神創論" which also defines "演化論". "進化論" is full of "言語偽術". So please let go of "進化論" and "Natural Selection".

      Delete
  12. Replies
    1. 同意W.Wong。同埋我想話,呢種又中又英嘅code-mixing討論令人很難follow。說完。辛苦晒。

      Delete
    2. 謝謝王教授,我眼花了。

      Delete
  13. 五十步 一百步 步步相同

    ReplyDelete
  14. 區生, 若以另一角度觀察:

    Natural selection is a phenomenon happened in the past. (People may use it to predict future events...We don't care for now...)

    A term is just a label. So why don't we play a mix-up game, to replace the term "natural selection" by, say, "phenomenon 1976".

    In Dawkins's book, he said:

    >> In species that live in herds or troops, an orphaned youngster
    >> may be adopted by a strange female, most probably one who has
    >> lost her own child. Monkey-watchers sometimes use the word 'aunt'
    >> for an adopting female. In most cases there is no evidence that
    >> she really is an aunt, or indeed any kind of relative: if monkey-
    >> watchers were as gene-conscious as they might be, they would not
    >> use an important word like 'aunt' so uncritically. In most cases
    >> we should probably regard adoption, however touching it may seem,
    >> as a misfiring of a built-in rule. This is because the generous
    >> female is doing her own genes no good by caring for the orphan.
    >> She is wasting time and energy which she could be investing in
    >> the lives of her own kin, particularly future children of her own.
    >> It is presumably a mistake that happens too seldom for natural
    >> selection to have 'bothered' to change the rule by making the
    >> maternal instinct more selective. In many cases, by the way, such
    >> adoptions do not occur, and an orphan is left to die.

    Now if we replace the label from "natural selection" to "phenomenon 1976", one of the sentences would say:

    >> It is presumably a mistake that happens too seldom for "phenomenon 1976"
    >> to have 'bothered' to change the rule by making the maternal instinct
    >> more selective.

    If "phenomenon 1976" is not a real entity or object, how can "phenomenon 1976" be able to "change the rule" (or any rules), when it obviously doesn't possess any rules? Maybe with an invisible hand?

    ---

    Also "phenomenon 1976" should only be up to 1976. Why don't we label "natural selection" up to 1990 as "phenomenon 1990", and up to 2013 as "phenomenon 2013". (I am skipping the many in-between "phenomenon xxxx" labels.)

    >> Obviously "phenomenon 1976" is a subset of "phenomenon 1990", which in turn a subset of "phenomenon 2013". And obviously conclusion drawn at "phenomenon 1976" might/might not be different from the conclusion drawn at "phenomenon 1990", as "favoritism" might change to certain direction. The same for "phenomenon 1990" to "phenomenon 2013".

    Thus we may have three (and many more) versions of the same sentences:

    >> It is presumably a mistake that happens too seldom for "phenomenon 1976" to have 'bothered' to change the rule by making the maternal instinct more selective.

    >> It is presumably a mistake that happens too seldom for "phenomenon 1990" to have 'bothered' to change the rule by making the maternal instinct more selective.

    >> It is presumably a mistake that happens too seldom for "phenomenon 2013" to have 'bothered' to change the rule by making the maternal instinct more selective.

    And this sentence has to be kept up-to-dated as long as time goes on.

    --- post 1 of 2

    ReplyDelete
  15. --- continue to post 2 of 2



    Now look at another example in the book,

    >> Natural selection would severely penalize such gullibility in males and indeed would favour males who took active steps to kill any potential step-children as soon as they mated with a new wife.

    Changing the label gives these:

    >> "Phenomenon 1976" would severely penalize such gullibility in males and indeed would favour males who took active steps to kill any potential step-children as soon as they mated with a new wife.

    >> "Phenomenon 1990" would severely penalize such gullibility in males and indeed would favour males who took active steps to kill any potential step-children as soon as they mated with a new wife.

    >> "Phenomenon 2013" would severely penalize such gullibility in males and indeed would favour males who took active steps to kill any potential step-children as soon as they mated with a new wife.

    Even if we assume these sentences are valid, then:

    >> Would "Phenomenon 2014" severely penalize such gullibility...? We don't know, as "phenomenon 2014" hasn't completed.

    >> Would "Phenomenon 2015" severely penalize such gullibility...? We don't know, as "phenomenon 2015" hasn't completed.

    >> Would "Phenomenon 2016" severely penalize such gullibility...? We don't know, as "phenomenon 2016" hasn't completed.

    >> ...

    So we could argue that the original sentence made a claim towards further "Phenomenon xxxx", yet we don't know whether the claim would become true or not. Thus the original sentence is meaningless as of today, if its validity status is not updated.


    Then what is "Natural Selection" anyway? A phenomenon or an existing entity? An observation or a prediction?

    ReplyDelete
  16. '"九唔搭八" is one type of the many "logical fallacies" '

    'the "you-are-putting-words-into-my-mouth"-type logical fallacy.'

    '"Higher/lower chance" and "higher/lower possibility" can be part of "言語偽術".'

    多謝Anonymous先生的一大堆logical fallacies例子,讓我哋見識到真正的言語偽術。

    ReplyDelete
  17. 區生, for your information :

    [ Extract from - bio.classes.ucsc.edu/bio175/Lectures/5_Natural_Selection.pdf ]

    Natural selection: Facts and inferences
    >> Fact 1. Natural populations have large excess reproductive capacities.
    >> Fact 2. Population sizes generally remain stable.
    >> Fact 3. Resources are limiting.
    >>>> Inference 1. A severe struggle for existence must occur.
    >> Fact 4. An abundance of variation exists among individuals of a species.
    >> Fact 5. Some of this variation is heritable.
    >>>> Inference 2. Genetically superior individuals out-survive and out-reproduce others.
    >>>> Inference 3. Over many generations, evolutionary change must occur in the population

    A definition of natural selection:
    >> “changes in the relative frequencies of different genotypes (genes) in a population because of differences in the survivorship and/or reproduction of their phenotypes”.

    At what level does natural selection act?
    >> organisms may be decomposed into two components - the genotype and the phenotype.
    >> genotype is the hereditary material, or set of genetic instructions, that determine an organism’s structural, physiological, and behavioral characteristics.
    >> the phenotype represents the physical expression of a particular genotype.
    >> it results from an interaction between genotype and environment.
    >> a genotype may thus produce a number of different phenotypes depending on the environmental conditions.

    Some important principles of natural selection
    >> 1. Natural selection (usually) acts at the level of individuals, not populations.
    >> 2. Populations, not individuals, evolve.
    >> 3. Natural selection is retrospective and cannot predict the future.
    >> 4. Natural selection is not necessarily progressive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 謝謝這位無名君,遲些再補充!

      Delete
  18. Ok, you win. Mr. Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 世上有兩個人,一個叫Q,一個叫A,兩人「討論」演化論。

    Q質疑演化論,問了十個問題:
    Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10

    A答了Q五個問題:
    A1, A2, A3, A4, A5

    餘下五個問題,問得不明不白,A沒可能回答:
    A6, A7, A8, A9, A10

    然後,Q重覆原來的十個問題:
    Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10

    Q公告天下:大家來看看,演化論還有很多爭論,很多問題都未解決。你們沒有答案!演化論不是科學!我是不會相信的!

    ReplyDelete
  20. 如果生物懂得 自覺性地 "改變 DNA" 去 "適應環境",已經是個謬誤。
    如果生物能夠 非自覺性地 "改變 DNA" 去 "適應環境",也是需要不違反所有生物學、化學、物理學 (及 DNA) 的定律進行。

    所以說病毒能夠依 "環境" 而變種,已經是個謬誤。病毒祇是依據其 DNA 預定的程式功能去產生變異。(亦需要利用病毒不可能"理解" 的 "化學反應" 進行。)

    "進化論" 中 "Natural Selection" 這術語的含義,是人云亦云。有問題 (i.e. questionable) 及有時間性。亦比較華文 "物競天擇" 這詞組延展的意思 更加狹窄。


    結論: 最大的輸家是高弟兄。既攪錯了 "神創論",亦攪錯了 "演化論"。

    區生, 為甚麼還不 "放下" ?

    ReplyDelete