好笑的基督教

[qwerty0]

更多几个secular scientists关于生命的起源的观点：

Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), 176 pp.

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." p. 148

Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), 256 pp.

"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon." pp. 20-21

"In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth." p. 23

Mora, Peter T., "The Folly of Probability," in The Origins of Prebiological Systems, ed. Sydney Fox (New York: Academic Press, 1965), 482 pp.

"I believe we developed this practice (i.e., postulating prebiological natural selection) to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-replicating state is zero. When for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, that concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that, no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and immeasurably." p. 45

Wald, George, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955, 270 pp.)（1967年生物或医学诺奖获得者）

"The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, . . given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once.

"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles." p. 12

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14

Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981), Wickramasinghe is Professor of Applied Math & Astronomy, University College, Cardiff.

"From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.

"Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were '10 to the power of 40,000.'"

"They did calculations based on the size and age of the universe (15 billion years) and found that the odds against life beginning spontaneously anywhere in space were '10 to the power of 30.'"

"At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God.

We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation--and not accidental random shuffling."

Yockey, Hubert P., "Self-Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 91 (1981), pp. 13-31.

"The calculations presented in this paper show that the origin of a rather accurate genetic code, not necessarily the modern one, is a pons asinorum which must be crossed to pass over the abyss which separates crystallography, high polymer chemistry and physics from biology. The information content of amino acids sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adaptor function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physico-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present." p. 26

"A practical man will not believe a scenario which appears to him to have a very small probability if a tossed coin is observed to fall heads ten times consecutively, a practical man will believe it to be two-headed without examining it even though the sequence of all heads is exactly as probable as any other sequence" [Total No. permutations - 1024]. p. 27

"Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of dialectic materialism plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in exobiology and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on 'suitable planets elsewhere' is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary." pp. 27-28 Back to Top

 

[qwerty0]

再从http://www.reocities.com/promo777/quotesof.htm里面摘取一些关于“The Alleged Transitional Forms”的著名secular科学家的观点。Transitional Form相对来说容易理解一些，也是阿Q后面查找证据的主要方向

引子：If evolution had really taken place in the past, there ought to be multitudes of transitional forms preserved in the rocks. Instead, evolutionists have been able to cite only a handful of candidates out of the billions of known fossils. These are mainly the lungfishes, the mammal-like reptiles, the archaeopteryx（始祖鸟）, the horses, and--more recently--the so-called walking whales.

When these are examined more closely, however, they don't fill the bill at all. Either they are out of place in geologic time or they are separate kinds in their own right or both.

Olson, Storrs L., and Alan Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature, vol. 278 (March 15, 1979), pp. 247-248.

"In conclusion, the robust furcula of Archaeopteryx would have provided a suitable point of origin for a well developed pectoralis muscle. Furthermore, the supracoracoideus muscle, and hence an ossified sternum, is not necessary to effect the recovery stroke of the wing. Thus the main evidence for Archaeopteryx（始祖鸟） having been a terrestrial, cursorial predator is invalidated. There is nothing in the structure of the pectoral girdle of Archaeopteryx that would preclude its having been a powered flier." p. 248

Wiki对Storrs L. Olson的介绍：He is one of the world's foremost avian paleontologists （鸟类化石学）；

During their pioneering research work on Hawaii, which lasted 23 years, Olson and James found and described the remains of 50 extinct bird species new to science, including the Nēnē-nui, the Moa-nalos the apteribises, and the Grallistrix "stilt-owls". In 1982, he discovered subfossil bones of the long ignored Brace's Emerald on the Bahamas, which gave evidence that this hummingbird is a valid and distinct species.[6] In November 1999, Olson wrote an open letter to the National Geographic Society, in which he criticized Christopher P. Sloan's claims about the dinosaur-to-bird transition which referred to the fake species Archaeoraptor. In 2000, he helped to resolve the mystery of Necropsar leguati from the World Museum Liverpool, which turned out to be an albinistic specimen of the Grey Trembler.

 

[CHRIS88]

In my personal opinion, this is one of the best discussions ever happened in CFC.

 

[cvictor]

宗教是面团子,真理不是. 宗教是骗人的,真理是救人的. 所以, 宗教徒害怕讨论他们的宗教;因为他们的宗教见不得阳光. 而真理的信从者非常乐意和别人分享讨论他们的信仰, 因为真理是生命的光,能够驱散一切黑暗!

主耶稣就是这真理,就是这生命的光 - 真理使你得自由!

新年快乐!

看到你这位基督教徒的帖子就好笑。

 

[qwerty0]

补充#587一些 secular科学家在non-life to life上面的观点：http://www.oocities.org/promo777/quotesof.htm

Orgel, Leslie E., "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life," New Scientist, vol. 94 (April 15, 1982), pp. 149-152. Orgel来自牛津和剑桥, one of the top biochemists in the world and of special repute in origin-of-life studies. 与Crick相同，支持地球原始生命来自外太空

"We do not yet understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life, and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." p. 151

"Since the time of Louis Pasteur, the origin of optical activity in biological systems has attracted a great deal of attention. Two very different questions must be answered. First, why do all amino acids in proteins or all nucleotides in nucleic acids have the same handedness? Secondly, why are the animo acids all left-handed (L-) and the nucleotides all right-handed (D-)? We do not know the answer to either question, but we can make a number of plausible suggestions." p. 151

Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), pp. 77-83.

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." p. 78

"We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the RNA world. This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." p. 78

"The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future." p. 83

Yockey, Hubert P., "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67 (1977), pp. 377-398.

"Certain old untenable ideas have served only to confuse the solution of the problem. Negentropy is not a concept because entropy cannot be negative. The role that negentropy has played in previous discussions is replaced by 'complexity' as defined in information theory." p. 377

"Attempts to relate the idea of 'order' in a crystal with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words which cannot stand careful scrutiny." p. 380

"An uninvited guest at any discussion of the origin of life and of evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts." p. 380

"The 'warm little pond' scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." p. 396

Anonymous,"Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294 (November 12, 1981)

"The essence of his argument last week was that the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 1040,000--representing the specificity with which some 2000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 1020 nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length, might be defined. Evolutionary processes would, Hoyle said, require several Hubble times to yield such a result. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' "Of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said he was at a loss to understand 'biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.'" p. 105

 

[CHRIS88]

看到你这位基督教徒的帖子就好笑。

Haha, glad to hear that.

Keep smiling and let me know if you feel the other way anytime in the future.

 

[qwerty0]

Stephen Jay Gould, 哈佛教授，当代最重要的进化论科学家之一，承认中间环节化石的缺失，提出Punctuated equilibrium（间断平衡）物种进化观点，可以解释这个问题。

关于猿-->人,Gould, Stephen Jay, "Empire of the Apes," Natural History, vol. 96 (May 1987), pp. 20-25.

"The oldest human fossils are less than 4 million years old, and we do not know which branch on the copious bush of apes budded off the twig that led to our lineage. (In fact, except for the link of AsianSivapithecus to the modern orangutan, we cannot trace any fossil ape to any living species. Paleontologists have abandoned the once popular notion that Ramapithecus (腊玛古猿) might be a source of human ancestry.) Thus, sediments between 4 and 10 million years in age are potential guardians of the Holy Grail of human evolution--the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all." p. 24

Gould关于Punctuated equilibrium的简介, 其中简单述说了寒武纪大爆发和地球历史：

在他的观点中，35亿年前地球开始出现单细胞生命：“life on the earth evolved quickly and is as old as it could be”，在地球历史的5／6时间里都是单细胞生命，一直到6亿年前出现多细胞动物，接着大爆发来到：

More curiously, all major stages in organizing animal life's multicellular architecture then occurred in a short period beginning less than 600 million years ago and ending by about 530 million years ago – and the steps within this sequence are also discontinuous and episodic, not gradually accumulative

The subsequent main pulse, starting about 530 million years ago, constitutes the famous Cambrian explosion, during which all but one modern phylum of animal ]ife made a first appearance in the fossil record. ( Geologists had previously allowed up to 40 million years for this event, but an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years.)

Gould对生命历史的总结：“Three billion years of unicellularity, followed by five million years of intense creativity and then capped by more than 500 million years of variation on set anatomical themes”

We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. An "external" explanation based on ecology seems attractive: the Cambrian explosion represents an initial filling of the "ecological barrel" of niches for multicellular organisms, and any experiment found a space. The barrel has never emptied since; even the great mass extinctions left a few species in each principal role, and their occupation of ecological space forecloses opportunity for fundamental novelties. But an "internal" explanation based on genetics and development also seems necessary as a complement: the earliest multicellular animals may have maintained a flexibility for genetic change and embryological transformation that became greatly reduced as organisms "locked in" to a set of stable and successful designs. 

In any case, this initial period of both internal and external flexibility yielded a range of invertebrate anatomies that may have exceeded (in just a few million years of production) the full scope of animal form in all the earth's environments today (after more than 500 million years of additional time for further expansion). Scientists are divided on this question. Some claim that the anatomical range of this initial explosion（寒武纪大爆发） exceeded that of modern life, as many early experiments died out and no new phyla have ever arisen. But scientists most strongly opposed to this view allow that Cambrian diversity at least equaled the modern range - so even the most cautious opinion holds that 500 million subsequent years of opportunity have not expanded the Cambrian range, achieved in just five million years. The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.

Moreover, we do not know why most of the early experiments died, while a few survived to become our modern phyla ...

关于寒武纪大爆发，饮用一本大学生物教材的说法：
R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow & P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pgs 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001)

Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."

Gould没有用化石有待发现、化石形成概率很小等低级借口来解释中间进化环节的证据缺失，而是诚实地用了很多‘don't know’，然后用他的间断平衡理论来解释。

 

[CanChn]

有些人就是放不下一颗执着心。

 

[soaring]

所以俺说Pope说进化论与圣经兼容超过俺的理解范围。前面已经回答过Chiffon同学，不再累赘了。历史上圣经的经文解释确实争议不断，但是2000年前死海古卷旧约跟今天的圣经一字不变。关于人如何理解圣经的问题，俺的圣经根基甚浅，不愿多谈

第二个问题指的就是你提到的两个人，俺把他们提到的东西归到哲学里面。俺对这三者的粗浅理解是：

宗教（单指基督教）：它不需要逻辑，也不需要世俗意义上的基本概念。因为它的根基是一位全能的神，祂有掌管天地的权柄，那么祂的话就是真理。反之，如果将我们所理解的逻辑、价值观去检验基督教，相当于假设了神的权柄并不高于人，可能同时假设了基督教是人创造出来的精神鸦片，这不是基督教

科学：包括了科学方法和科学知识。知识是通过科学方法确定的。所以科学方法优先于科学知识。科学方法本质是一个哲学问题，即人类如何认识、理解客观世界的方法

哲学：借用罗素的定义，介入神学与科学之间，理性的，不诉之于权威的，对于那些迄今仍为科学知识所不能肯定之事物的思考（如果根据这个定义，俺愿意将进化论归到哲学里面 ）

所以，在俺的理解上，哲学严格意义上不是一个“正确/错误”的概念；科学是出于理性的、可实证的，在限定条件下，有明确的“正确/错误”；基督教要不是绝对的真理（如果神存在），要不是绝对的错误（如果神不存在）。在“正确/错误”这个意义上，俺说哲学与科学/神学不同

关于科学和宗教，重复一下俺前面提到的观点。所有人赞成科学与宗教无关，但是俺认为此楼中大伙有点将科学神秘化的倾向，俺认为“科学”的诸多要素里面，最核心的是“科学的方法”，通过“科学的方法”，可以从零开始获得正确的知识；反之，没有正确的方法，可以在正确的知识基础上得到错误的结论。“科学家”并不是使用“科学方法”的必要，亦非充分条件，俺此楼中质疑的就是#544中表达的，科学界用一个非科学的、即不严谨方法，试图得到科学史上最重要的一个科学结论：Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

即，科学界没有用科学手段去对待这个问题

其次，科学的起点不应该是无神论，而是“科学方法”。科学与宗教无关，指的是科学不应该接受任何没有经过“科学方法”检验的权威观点。如果用圣经的教导直接质疑科学结论，俺认为这就是混淆了宗教与科学的界限，当然科学界可以置之不理；如果基督徒从宗教中得到信心，用科学的语言去质疑进化论，这没有违反科学的立场。还有，科学不能有任何预设条件，包括预设“神不存在”。可以通过"科学方法"证明人间接来源于无机世界，并不是神造，但是科学不能将“人不是神创造的”当成前提，窃以为这不是“科学精神”

同意 ，可是进化论已经够闹心了... ...

以前看到假设大爆炸成立，宇宙中必须存在与现在这些“正物质”相同数量的“反物质”（就是你说的黑物质吧？），但至少现在还没有发现反物质。大爆炸是否正确俺完全不懂，当时俺的感觉是，那么重要的东西还没有确定，怎么大爆炸就被认为是正确了? 不过大爆炸还是不同，貌似没有被当成“Science Fact”，不可置疑。将你这段话的大爆炸换成进化论，就是俺的观点：结论建立在一大堆未知的假设上，怎么能宣称是“Science Fact”? 以后会再贴一些进化论的争议证据

[FONT=宋体]多谢。继续讨论。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]既然你知道“[/FONT][FONT=宋体]科学方法本质是一个哲学问题，即人类如何认识、理解客观世界的方法”，你怎么能说“所有人赞成科学与宗教无[/FONT][FONT=宋体]关”？难道你已经同意费尔巴哈的结论，基督教信仰的上帝只是人类愿望的投影而已，与人类认识、与客观世界毫无关系？如果真是这样，虽然一方面倒可以解释为什么你会认为基督教“[/FONT][FONT=宋体]不需要逻辑，也不需要世俗意义上的基本概念”，但不能解释为什么你还会去理性地操心“它的根基”，为什么你还会担心“如果将[/FONT][FONT=宋体]我们所理解的逻辑、价值观去检验基督教，相当于假设了神的权柄并不高于人，可能同时假设了基督教是人创造出来的精神鸦片，这不是基督教”这种蚂蚁大象问题。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]正是因为[/FONT][FONT=宋体]“[/FONT][FONT=宋体]科学方法本质是一个哲学问题，即人类如何认识、理解客观世界的方法”，科学与宗教与哲学息息相关。除非所有宗教心甘情愿承认它们所宣扬的一切与这个客观世界无关，与我们对这个客观世界的认识无关，否则所有宗教都必须[/FONT] [FONT=宋体]面临科学的挑战，包括加入[/FONT] [FONT=宋体]关于人类如何认识、理解客观世界的哲学辩论。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]你对哲学的理解，似乎也偏于狭窄，但我同意“理性的，不诉之于权威的”这两句。哲学涉及领域很广，除了你自己上面提及的“科学方法本质是一个哲学问题”，即[/FONT]epistemology[FONT=宋体]，还有宗教哲学，科学哲学，逻辑学，人生哲学，等等，罗素的定义未必确切。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]反物质与黑物质是两回事。前者已经被发现，或者说至少反物质粒子（比如正电子）的存在已经被证实。后者跟黑能量一样，是当今主流科学家假设存在的东西，目的是为了“解释”通过科学方法观察到的物理现象，都还没有被发现（甚至像“上帝”那样按其本质不可能被发现，否则不叫“黑”了）。比如十多年前天文观察“意外”发现有限宇宙不但还在扩张，而且还在加速扩张，这是标准理论没有预料也无法解释的，怎么办呢，一个“科学”方法就是把未知数用[/FONT][FONT=宋体]X代替，这里的X就是“黑能量”。科学家假设一定有黑能量存在，正是这个黑能量在导致大爆炸后的宇宙继续在加速扩张。所以今天许多第一流的科学家都在寻找这个黑能量，如果找到，诺贝尔奖是肯定的。当今世上，只有一个还不知道是否活着的科学家，意识到所谓的“黑能量”其实根本不存在，宇宙之所以仍在加速扩张，是因为有限宇宙本身自转所产生的离心力仍在不断加强。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]纯粹从逻辑角度考虑，我的哲学判断是所谓的黑物质也不存在，存在的是有限宇宙内所有大小旋转系统（包括有限宇宙本身）所产生的向心力的综合作用。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]我大致看了下你收集的各种人士对进化论提出的意见。用“理性的，不诉之于权威的”眼光来判断，许多批评观点逻辑都有问题。退一亿步而言，假设神创论成立，或者说地球上的生命是外星文明设计的，原来想要弄清楚的根本哲学问题还是没有解决：神的生命也好，外星文明的生命也好，生命是哪来的。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]与此同时，进化论的表述，不管是从支持者口中还是从批评者口中，都有尚待进化的地方，尤其是关于[/FONT][FONT=宋体]chance、random这些字眼。如果你认为这个客观世界本身是个混乱无序的随机存在（这基本上是当今“科学”世界观的心态写照），你自然会倾向于认为进化也是这么一个过程，从而招来“猴子莎士比亚”之类的质疑。但如果你意识到这个客观世界本身就是一个精妙绝伦的永恒存在，无机物也好，有机物也好，都是能量在那里千变万化，而且遵循永恒的规律，所有会在宇宙漫长演化过程中导致“生命”产生的信息，都永恒地保存在有限宇宙的旋转之中，你就会像信徒接受一个根本不存在的上帝那样接受这个显然存在的客观世界，就会以大自然一部分的身份来欣赏这个大自然，就会知道生命的永恒，知道为什么张载会说，存，吾顺事，没，吾宁也。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]什么时候人类达到这种宗教、哲学、科学“三位一体”的境界，人类社会才有可能会太平一些。在那天到来之前，我们的大脑还有无数进化工作要做。[/FONT]

 

[qwerty0]

跳回去＃591, 回到生命起源的话题。生命起源并不属于进化论的范畴，同源进化的起点是：an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past。如果宇宙是有起点的，如果生命不能在地球上自然产生，同源进化存在的基础也不存在了。达尔文本人也讲"warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"。不管怎样，做一下总结，后面仅专注于宏进化

前面多位一流的科学家认为地球上 non-life to life 几乎是不可能的，或者目前科学距离揭开这个谜底甚远。再简单看看相关最新的科学进展：Abiogenesis （无生源论或化学进化论）

Origin of organic molecules，这个环节可以部分在实验室生成：米勒试验：早在1952年，成功在实验室里，从无机环境里生成氨基酸；Fox's experiments：1960s, Sidney W. Fox证明实验室里，氨基酸可以spontaneously form small peptides（肽）；Spiegelman Monster：1970s，Sol Spiegelman demonstrated a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q-Beta Replicase can, under the right conditions, spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA which evolves into a form similar to Spiegelman's Monster，等等

From organic molecules to protocells（原始细胞），这是重点：The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both.

有很多假设：Deep sea vent hypothesis、 RNA world hypothesis、Iron-sulfur world、Thermosynthesis world、Bubbles、Pumice rafts、Autocatalysis，等等。但是不管哪一种，都停留在核心问题（核酸，RNA或者DNA的合成）上无法前进，这也是楼上指出的mathematically impossible问题

 

[qwerty0]

[FONT=宋体]多谢。继续讨论。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]既然你知道“[/FONT][FONT=宋体]科学方法本质是一个哲学问题，即人类如何认识、理解客观世界的方法”，你怎么能说“所有人赞成科学与宗教无[/FONT][FONT=宋体]关”？难道你已经同意费尔巴哈的结论，基督教信仰的上帝只是人类愿望的投影而已，与人类认识、与客观世界毫无关系？如果真是这样，虽然一方面倒可以解释为什么你会认为基督教“[/FONT][FONT=宋体]不需要逻辑，也不需要世俗意义上的基本概念”，但不能解释为什么你还会去理性地操心“它的根基”，为什么你还会担心“如果将[/FONT][FONT=宋体]我们所理解的逻辑、价值观去检验基督教，相当于假设了神的权柄并不高于人，可能同时假设了基督教是人创造出来的精神鸦片，这不是基督教”这种蚂蚁大象问题。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]正是因为[/FONT][FONT=宋体]“[/FONT][FONT=宋体]科学方法本质是一个哲学问题，即人类如何认识、理解客观世界的方法”，科学与宗教与哲学息息相关。除非所有宗教心甘情愿承认它们所宣扬的一切与这个客观世界无关，与我们对这个客观世界的认识无关，否则所有宗教都必须[/FONT] [FONT=宋体]面临科学的挑战，包括加入[/FONT] [FONT=宋体]关于人类如何认识、理解客观世界的哲学辩论。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]你对哲学的理解，似乎也偏于狭窄，但我同意“理性的，不诉之于权威的”这两句。哲学涉及领域很广，除了你自己上面提及的“科学方法本质是一个哲学问题”，即[/FONT]epistemology[FONT=宋体]，还有宗教哲学，科学哲学，逻辑学，人生哲学，等等，罗素的定义未必确切。[/FONT]

[FONT=宋体]我大致看了下你收集的各种人士对进化论提出的意见。用“理性的，不诉之于权威的”眼光来判断，许多批评观点逻辑都有问题。退一亿步而言，假设神创论成立，或者说地球上的生命是外星文明设计的，原来想要弄清楚的根本哲学问题还是没有解决：神的生命也好，外星文明的生命也好，生命是哪来的。[/FONT]

关于宗教与科学的观点，换个说法再说一遍。在如何认识客观世界上，俺认为宗教与科学的本质差别是自顶向下和自下向上两种完全不同的方法。它们的实际关系是双向的：宗教可以成为科学家思想的源泉，以及信心的基础，但是宗教不能称为科学研究的证据。反映到进化论的例子，人可以信仰圣经中万物神创的教导，可以从圣经获得信心，但是圣经不能作为质疑进化论的依据，必须用科学的方法来；科学当然可以也必须拒绝将圣经做为证据，但是对于源自宗教，但不以宗教为手段的质疑，必须客观对待。同时无神论不应该成为科学的前提，科学的起点是科学的哲学方法，由此可能可以检验神是否存在

1633年的伽里略事件中，宗教越界了，对科学干扰。对进化论的批判，只要用科学的语言进行，不管动机如何，科学界必须客观对待。否则不是宗教方的问题，而是科学界的过敏。在此楼，俺摘选的科学家言论，除非粗心忽略，除了一开始7位诺奖得主有基督教徒以外，其他一概遵循三个原则：（1）著名，有足够份量的科学家（2）非基督教徒，至少简单的Google没有发现他的宗教倾向（3）尽量选用明确支持进化论的科学家的观点

俺在此楼的主旨是，科学（进化论）必须通过科学的检验。宗教（俺仅指基督教）当然与客观世界息息相关，基督教当然可以接受，也欢迎科学的检验，唯一的困难在于，当拿人的逻辑来检验宗教时，如何不受现世价值观的干扰；拿科学检验宗教时，如何确保科学用“足够正确的知识”？现在就是在质疑，进化论是否可以作为足够正确的知识来检验圣经

在此楼质疑进化论中，如果你认为存在什么宗教问题，可以直接指出来，否则这样绕了半天都在概念里面转，出不去

关于俺收集的质疑进化论意见，如果你觉得哪里有问题，非常欢迎具体指出来。可能有点误会的是，俺进楼完全没有提倡intelligent design的打算，也没有这个必要。俺虚伪的逻辑是：同源进化不成立，不等于神创论成立。逻辑上这句话成立，但事实上可能没有人这么想。这仅是在帮俺缩小吵架范围。走了一些弯路，俺的思路是：

1）一开始引用一些诺奖得主的言论，证明进化论得到科学界压倒性的支持可能仅是一个表面现象，一些真正科学家是存疑的－－不在于细节，而在根本问题
2）分析近20年来生物与医学诺奖得主获奖原因，希望得到一个感性认识：今天科学界对生物学，特别是遗传的了解究竟有多深？是否足以支持宏进化理论？
3）引用1986年和2005年两封科学界，包括近百名诺奖得主签字的支持进化论的信，证明科学界对进化论的态度是“不可置疑”的真理，而不是科学假设
4）引用一些一流的科学家对生命起源的质疑，和相关的最新科学成就，证明non-life -- life的生命起源目前完全在假设阶段，同时有足够份量的声音在讲，这是不可能的
5）收集进化论阵营内对进化过渡化石的不同意见，以及后面会展示的进化论者之间的论战，借以显现宏进化理论的成熟程度，以及驳斥方舟子之类对过渡化石过于简化的搪塞
6）后面会尽力证明进化论是如何自顶向下，而不是从下往上的，以及分析科学界认定同源进化必然存在的根基

关于你提到的终极问题：神的生命也好，外星文明的生命也好，生命是哪来的。俺赞成将地球生命来源归于外星文明并没有解决问题，因为外星文明同样存在自发产生或者神创的问题。神的生命从哪里来？俺认为人的理性是有限的，人没有能力思考这个问题，俺跳过

进化论的表述，不管是从支持者口中还是从批评者口中，都有尚待进化的地方

这涉及到两个问题，重复前面帖子：

1、质疑的不是无线电传输千分之一到百万分之一误码率改进的问题，而是能不能通的问题。换句话讲，进化论者凭什么认定进化论的“进化”不影响同源进化的基本结论？
2、科学界认定进化论是“不可置疑”的真理，尽管承认进化论需要“完善”。这暗示着进化论是一个自顶向下的东西：先确定结论，再研究building blocks，因为这个结论先是作为一个假想提出来，并没有经过其他途径严密证明同源进化必然发生，所以它有了宗教的属性

如果你认为这个客观世界本身是个混乱无序的随机存在（这基本上是当今“科学”世界观的心态写照），你自然会倾向于认为进化也是这么一个过程... ... 你就会像信徒接受一个根本不存在的上帝那样接受这个显然存在的客观世界...

我们用完全不同的approach来看待这个问题。对于进化论，俺用“科学”的方法来决定是否接受，而不是从“哲学”的角度；关于信仰，俺没有预设神“肯定不存在”，俺确实不知道一个人如何判别神是否存在，但俺肯定不是从“哲学”出发。这是根本问题。神是否存在，影响了人对客观存在完全不同的看法。但正如你讲，人对客观世界的认识，对神是否存在的问题又会产生巨大的影响。这是鸡和蛋的问题，俺扯不清楚的

 

[cvictor]

说了这么多，还是蚂蚁大象，鸡和蛋的故事。

 

[rosehip]

说了这么多，还是蚂蚁大象，鸡和蛋的故事。

蚂蚁把大象拌倒了，鸡生蛋蛋生鸡？。

 

[Chiffon]

对进化论的批判，只要用科学的语言进行，不管动机如何，科学界必须客观对待。

您一直在做的就是罗列科学家们的站队表态，看不出来用过什么科学的语言。只能说您需要补的数理化基础太多，要知道反对进化论光靠中文英文是不够的，当祥林嫂也是个技术活。



进化论无非是众多科学结论的一个，从没人说不容质疑。但需要用科学的游戏规则质疑。如果不是部分丧失理性的基督徒的长期反对，我不知有哪个科学结论需要那么政治性地公开站队表态，而您找出那么多支持进化论的签名信，正是基督教徒逼迫的结果，有良知的科学家公开地团结地和恶势力做斗争。

 

[qwerty0]

更多的著名进化论科学家对进化中间环节化石缺失的引用，阿Q摘录部分著名的、secular科学家的观点

“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” (Ernst Mayr, 无神论者，was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists, 也是1986年支持进化论statement的签名者之一-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

“What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, 与Gould一起提出 punctuated equilibrium，另一个重要的进化论科学家, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

“We are faced more with a great leap of faith . . . that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks . . . than any hard evidence.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57.)

“Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record.” (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22.)

“To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial.” (Gould, Stephen J., “The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis,” 1983, p. 81.), 阿Q注：此处Simpson指George Gaylord Simpson, 另一个进化论大佬, "perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis"

“The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, Stephen J., “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” 1982, p. 140.)

“The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)

“As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.” (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

“We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

“The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” (Raup, David M.，古生物学家，化石专家, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks…One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood (Raup, David, “Geology” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

“Transitions between major groups of organisms . . . are difficult to establish in the fossil record.” (Stebbins, G. L., is widely regarded as one of the leading evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107.)

“People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.” (Gee, Henry，古生物学家，进化论生物学家，senior editor of Nature, “Face of Yesterday,” The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.)