好笑的基督教
- 主题发起人 terry890
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,768
- 荣誉分数
- 23,534
- 声望点数
- 1,373
根本不存在什么进化论的大本营。科学家不是教会，没有集中在哪里唯谁马首是瞻，所谓什么大本营，最好的进化论学家，是你们这些人给封的，只不过意淫一下，让人误以为您端过什么人并不存在的老窝。
您只要一用中文讲自己对科学或进化论的观点，就暴露出根本就不清楚科学和进化论是什么，只敢躲在英文里，贴出来的和声称的内容驴唇不对马嘴。人家科学家在讨论某些细节上的进化路线，看看谁和谁在什么时候同什么源，被你给说成质疑进化论，否定有过同源。如果要画出整个进化树，化石当然有缺失，但你贴的东西里，人家没有质疑这棵树的存在，何况新的化石证据每年都有。
比如说这个“同源进化”，就是你搞出来的东西，你有没有胆用中文给讲一遍什么叫同源进化，对应的英文词是什么？讲讲有没有不同源进化，有没有同源不进化？
不预定立场、从下往上, 也是你自己搞的“科学原则”，许多科学理论是要有前提条件，科学是从上往下结合从下往上，没有哪个服从哪个。
为什么要预设上帝不存在？这也是你自己杜撰出来的“科学原则”。人家科学家没预设过上帝不存在。
你自己搞出来的“科学原则”太多，太不靠谱，还想拿什么科学原则说事呢？无非就是贴点进化论的大字报，把量灌足。
No fact, no reasoning but full of name calling, outrageous accusations, and arrogance presented with a stunningly gross language. Isn't this exactly what a "大字报" looks like?
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
Chiffon同学，俺问了无数个问题，没有得到任何一个正面的回答，讲了一大堆东西，没有一个正面的回应，冷不丁又怕抛出一个莫名其妙的问题。俺觉得跟您的讨论也进行不下去了。
如果证据还会继续提供，观点部分，俺认为已经讲了很多遍，没有必要再重复了。澄清一下这个帖子的一些东西后，以后不是以事论事的帖子俺可能就不回了，俺不希望在此话题上陷入无意义的口水战。见谅
很抱歉，进此楼之前，俺只在CFC看过Richard Darkins的名字，不认识其他任何一个进化论科学家的名字。这些封号还真不是俺封的，（顺便问一下，Gould，Simpson, Ernst Mayr这些名字，除了阿Q，还有“你们这些人”中的谁提到了？）。在引文中我加上了这些人的Wiki链接，建议你在骂人之前能够点一下鼠标先看看
俺什么时候讲过Gould这些人在质疑进化论？否认过同源？？？？，他们在质疑的是传统的同源进化理论，以及基于传统理论对化石记录的解释。不同的宏进化理论对化石记录做出了南辕北辙的解释，两者理论的成立都必须有“他们自己所支持的化石记录的解释的强力支持，否则这些理论的根基何在？”，-- 顺便提一下，美国科学院的文章是站在传统的渐进式一边的。
他们（后面还会贴出其他的进化论科学家之间的争论）当然是宣称他们的争论是在进化论范畴“内部”的
作为质疑进化论例子的只有最开始那些7个/21个诺奖得主两个帖子。你可以不看帖，你可以不看帖发表你的任何意见，但是如果要针对别人的贴发表意见，建议发表之前读读别人的贴是必要的
不好意思，同源进化确实是俺杜撰的，共同起源(Common descent)是正确的术语。但是在帖子，俺并没有错误理解“同源进化”的意思，有的话，你完全可以直接指出来
这是俺杜撰的，但俺没有将它归于“科学原则”。俺正在对"预设过上帝不存在"进行分析，会继续提供证据。问题是，你怎么知道人家科学家没有预设过上帝不存在？
是，这个原则是俺杜撰的。更加准确一点，俺可能需要加上一个限定，在进化论范围内. 谁的帖子更像大字报，就不用争了，每个人的标准可能都不一样
如果证据还会继续提供，观点部分，俺认为已经讲了很多遍，没有必要再重复了。澄清一下这个帖子的一些东西后，以后不是以事论事的帖子俺可能就不回了，俺不希望在此话题上陷入无意义的口水战。见谅
很抱歉，进此楼之前，俺只在CFC看过Richard Darkins的名字，不认识其他任何一个进化论科学家的名字。这些封号还真不是俺封的，（顺便问一下，Gould，Simpson, Ernst Mayr这些名字，除了阿Q，还有“你们这些人”中的谁提到了？）。在引文中我加上了这些人的Wiki链接，建议你在骂人之前能够点一下鼠标先看看
俺什么时候讲过Gould这些人在质疑进化论？否认过同源？？？？，他们在质疑的是传统的同源进化理论，以及基于传统理论对化石记录的解释。不同的宏进化理论对化石记录做出了南辕北辙的解释，两者理论的成立都必须有“他们自己所支持的化石记录的解释的强力支持，否则这些理论的根基何在？”，-- 顺便提一下，美国科学院的文章是站在传统的渐进式一边的。
他们（后面还会贴出其他的进化论科学家之间的争论）当然是宣称他们的争论是在进化论范畴“内部”的
作为质疑进化论例子的只有最开始那些7个/21个诺奖得主两个帖子。你可以不看帖，你可以不看帖发表你的任何意见，但是如果要针对别人的贴发表意见，建议发表之前读读别人的贴是必要的
不好意思，同源进化确实是俺杜撰的，共同起源(Common descent)是正确的术语。但是在帖子，俺并没有错误理解“同源进化”的意思，有的话，你完全可以直接指出来
这是俺杜撰的，但俺没有将它归于“科学原则”。俺正在对"预设过上帝不存在"进行分析，会继续提供证据。问题是，你怎么知道人家科学家没有预设过上帝不存在？
是，这个原则是俺杜撰的。更加准确一点，俺可能需要加上一个限定，在进化论范围内. 谁的帖子更像大字报，就不用争了，每个人的标准可能都不一样
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
再做一下苦力，将 #588， #601，#621， #622， #624, #626展示的进化论科学家的观点整理一下，看看他们与传统---即我们在教科书上学习到的，前面贴过的美国科学院近年来仍然持有的观点的争执在哪？#614也列出了传统宏进化论支持者对Gould这些人的攻击
下面中文是俺的理解，英文直接摘自楼上的原文
下面是这些进化论内部科学家在质疑学术环境纯洁性的部分引文：
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches"
"... and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks"
" We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not."
"Just as we have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chose to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record ... "
"they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. …It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. …They’ve ignored the question completely."
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. …"
下面中文是俺的理解，英文直接摘自楼上的原文
- 传统：化石记录中包括很多过渡类型生物
- 争议: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed
- 传统：化石记录不完整是因为难以形成化石、还有更多中间化石有待发现
- 争议：all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history
- 传统：化石记录是生物渐进式进化的证据
- 争议： The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism； In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
- 传统：不断发现新的过渡型生物的化石
- 争议： we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time， some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information; Ostrea-Gryphaea and Zaphrentis delanouei, have long since lost their scientific respectability
- 传统：物种进化是优胜劣汰的产物
- 争议：In large parts of the natural system it is impossible to demonstrate that one particular taxonomic sequence is superior to other alternatives； In other words, biological improvement is hard to find; Increasing complexity through time is elusive at best.
- 传统：历史上，一直到今天，生物一直在做缓慢的进化
- 争议：On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms; The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all
下面是这些进化论内部科学家在质疑学术环境纯洁性的部分引文：
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches"
"... and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks"
" We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not."
"Just as we have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chose to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record ... "
"they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. …It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. …They’ve ignored the question completely."
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. …"
I have the impression that duck doesn't really understand what is irritated.
Well, here is a perfect illustration by Richard Dawkins, when this highest profile Darwinist was challenged by an ordinary Christian on his "scientific" approaches.[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTV-py1W8Rk"]Richard Dawkins HUMILIATED by a Christian! - YouTube[/ame]
The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy – An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.[7]
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
在#640和#641支持的Richard Darkins和Stephen Jay Gould的论战中
两人，或者说两个学术派别在宏进化如何进行上存在全方位（？）的分歧，其中比较容易理解的有这么两点：
（1）Gould否认Extrapolationism (外推主义——适应度在微观进化层次上的累积性)，即他否认微进化的逐渐累积可以扩展到宏进化层面
（2）Gould否认进化是朝着进步（Biologically improvement）的方向进行，并且认为化石记录上显示，进化并不伴随生命在复杂度和适应度等方面的累积性、进步性的增长
相反，Gould的间断平衡理论大意是，宏进化发生在地理的局部，并且是突发式 产生，产生新的物种后，会停留在stasis状态，即基本不再进化。他们当然宣称他们的争论是发生在进化论内部，任何科学的学术争议也是最正常的事情。重复一下，俺对此提出质疑是基于：
（1）这些不同观点涉及到对化石记录几乎完全不同的解释--尽管现在也出现了试图调和这些争论的中间学派，但是
（2）不管哪一派，化石记录都是他们学说成立的重要依据，生物“共同起源”被认定“必然发生”“不可置疑”，化石记录也是其重要的证据
（3）Gould直死都在论战中，之后他的继任者在继续他的事业。我们能否这样理解，针对化石记录，以及这个学术，双方在几十年间都无法拿出另对方信服的“科学证据”，争论才会一直持续不断？
（4）宏进化学术界尚且远不能达成共识，如何能够将“共同起源”作为不可质疑的科学事实在公立学校授课？
这些争论表明了化石记录不可靠的程度，以及建立于化石记录之上的宏进化理论的成熟程度？？？
两人，或者说两个学术派别在宏进化如何进行上存在全方位（？）的分歧，其中比较容易理解的有这么两点：
（1）Gould否认Extrapolationism (外推主义——适应度在微观进化层次上的累积性)，即他否认微进化的逐渐累积可以扩展到宏进化层面
（2）Gould否认进化是朝着进步（Biologically improvement）的方向进行，并且认为化石记录上显示，进化并不伴随生命在复杂度和适应度等方面的累积性、进步性的增长
相反，Gould的间断平衡理论大意是，宏进化发生在地理的局部，并且是突发式 产生，产生新的物种后，会停留在stasis状态，即基本不再进化。他们当然宣称他们的争论是发生在进化论内部，任何科学的学术争议也是最正常的事情。重复一下，俺对此提出质疑是基于：
（1）这些不同观点涉及到对化石记录几乎完全不同的解释--尽管现在也出现了试图调和这些争论的中间学派，但是
（2）不管哪一派，化石记录都是他们学说成立的重要依据，生物“共同起源”被认定“必然发生”“不可置疑”，化石记录也是其重要的证据
（3）Gould直死都在论战中，之后他的继任者在继续他的事业。我们能否这样理解，针对化石记录，以及这个学术，双方在几十年间都无法拿出另对方信服的“科学证据”，争论才会一直持续不断？
（4）宏进化学术界尚且远不能达成共识，如何能够将“共同起源”作为不可质疑的科学事实在公立学校授课？
这些争论表明了化石记录不可靠的程度，以及建立于化石记录之上的宏进化理论的成熟程度？？？
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
对于Gould来讲，他认定宏进化必然存在，所以他将他与其他进化论科学家的争执看成是进化论内部之争。看看他在Discovery上面发现的一篇文章，分别被很多进化论者引用作为支持，和被创造论者作为靶子引用：Stephen Jay Gould：Evolution as Fact and Theory，看看黑体部分
抛开他和creationist关于“theory”“science fact”的定义的口水之争，看看干货-- “宏进化必然存在”的理由：
Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.)
The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.[/B] Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.
The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution —strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.
Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (兽孔目，the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human,Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?
抛开他和creationist关于“theory”“science fact”的定义的口水之争，看看干货-- “宏进化必然存在”的理由：
Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.)
The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.[/B] Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.
The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution —strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.
Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (兽孔目，the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human,Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
对于楼上Gould认为宏进化必然存在的三个理由：
1、果蝇 fruit flies和British moth是进化论者常常引用的例子，但是就算科学盲如阿Q，也不难看出这与宏进化无甚关系。这也是科学教为进化论变化的第三个标准程序：混淆进化论、微进化与宏进化的区别，包括拿微进化作为宏进化的证据，将对宏进化（更确切的讲，是对共同起源的质疑）引申到对包括微进化，或者更广的整个进化论的质疑
2、现实中，地球的生物是这么不完美，所以一定不是神创造的。万能的神为什么会创造一个没用的育幼袋给袋鼠，等等？ 显然这个观点看起来不是很“科学”吧？但却是哈佛教授Gould正式的观点，而且“They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason”。窃以为没什么好争论的
3.1、进化的中间化石证明进化存在。关于中间化石，Gould在不同场合下有多种表达，前面列举的对传统化石记录质疑的很多观点就是出自Gould的，再参见这个链接中更多的表述：http://www.discovery.org/a/7271
“[t]he 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.”
"persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly."
“it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
“transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
3.2 相邻进化物种的相似性。这里仅取Douglas J. Futuyma，另一个进化论科学家对此问题的部分看法：
“The gradual transition from therapsid reptiles to mammals is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were the actual ancestors of modern mammals.”
这里在用简单的逻辑质疑为什么骨骼的相似性能称为宏进化的证据？--- 说明，这个链接来自一个创造论者写的《Darwin On Trial》一书，他引用上面进化论科学家Futuyma的观点在质疑Gould
这篇文章写于1981，不明白他为什么没有将DNA作为“共同起源”必然存在的原因。事实上，俺认为俺对3.2的质疑是否成立并不重要，基于人类对生命科学的了解程度、共同起源、宏进化这么多不解之谜，这三点足以可以被Gould认为“地球上所有的生物，包括人都来自于极远的史前海洋中的某一个（些？）单细胞生物”必然成立的理由？
1、果蝇 fruit flies和British moth是进化论者常常引用的例子，但是就算科学盲如阿Q，也不难看出这与宏进化无甚关系。这也是科学教为进化论变化的第三个标准程序：混淆进化论、微进化与宏进化的区别，包括拿微进化作为宏进化的证据，将对宏进化（更确切的讲，是对共同起源的质疑）引申到对包括微进化，或者更广的整个进化论的质疑
2、现实中，地球的生物是这么不完美，所以一定不是神创造的。万能的神为什么会创造一个没用的育幼袋给袋鼠，等等？ 显然这个观点看起来不是很“科学”吧？但却是哈佛教授Gould正式的观点，而且“They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason”。窃以为没什么好争论的
3.1、进化的中间化石证明进化存在。关于中间化石，Gould在不同场合下有多种表达，前面列举的对传统化石记录质疑的很多观点就是出自Gould的，再参见这个链接中更多的表述：http://www.discovery.org/a/7271
“[t]he 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.”
"persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly."
“it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
“transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
3.2 相邻进化物种的相似性。这里仅取Douglas J. Futuyma，另一个进化论科学家对此问题的部分看法：
“The gradual transition from therapsid reptiles to mammals is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were the actual ancestors of modern mammals.”
这里在用简单的逻辑质疑为什么骨骼的相似性能称为宏进化的证据？--- 说明，这个链接来自一个创造论者写的《Darwin On Trial》一书，他引用上面进化论科学家Futuyma的观点在质疑Gould
这篇文章写于1981，不明白他为什么没有将DNA作为“共同起源”必然存在的原因。事实上，俺认为俺对3.2的质疑是否成立并不重要，基于人类对生命科学的了解程度、共同起源、宏进化这么多不解之谜，这三点足以可以被Gould认为“地球上所有的生物，包括人都来自于极远的史前海洋中的某一个（些？）单细胞生物”必然成立的理由？
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
克牧师，圣经里讲过地球是圆的吗？说过地球绕太阳转了吗？那哥白尼伽里略的在瞎折腾些啥啊？
鸭子，顺着歪一下楼，这里回答你的问题：
关于哥白尼伽里略当时怎么折腾的，这里有一些资料。顶楼有索引，不难找：
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/forum183/thread1167296.html
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,768
- 荣誉分数
- 23,534
- 声望点数
- 1,373
谢谢！我也去google了一下，关于圣经如何说地球是圆的问题；很欢乐。我再找找圣经和相对论、量子力学的，也许也会有惊人收获。
