好笑的基督教

[qwerty0]

先看看一个著名的反对恐龙－>始祖鸟－>鸟的科学家Alan Feduccia，鸟类进化专家， Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina 的观点，特别说明，他是进化论科学家，他对鸟的进化持与当时主流不同的意见：Archaeopteryx was a true bird. 俺引用进化论科学家的观点，不代表俺的认同，而是为了说明进化论科学家的巨大分歧。很正常，Feduccia被别的进化论科学家扣上pseudoscientific的帽子

需要注意的是，Feduccia从70年代起一直在反对始祖鸟是过渡物种的观点，他的两本书，The Age of Birds出版于1980年，The Origin and Evolution of Birds出版于1999年

1、furcula （叉骨）
前面已经讲过

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 （叉骨） 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."

 

[qwerty0]

继续Alan Feduccia坚持“始祖鸟”是鸟的观点

2、指甲弯度
Science,1993. Feduccia analyzed claw curvature arcs in the manual and pedal claws of Archaeopteryx and other birds, and found that Archaeopteryx clustered with other arboreal birds, suggesting that it was an arboreal animal rather than a terrestrial cursor or a bird which spent any considerable time on the ground

3、头骨
“Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.”

4、爪子的进化
Dr. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs"...

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." ， Naturwissenschaften 89:391-393, 2002

Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?,” Science, Vol. 278, No. 5338, 24 October 1997, pp. 596-597： Doubts about homology between theropod and bird digits remind us of some of the other problems in the “dinosaur-origin” hypothesis. These include the following: (i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the relatively heavy dinosaurs. (ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx. (iii) The temporal paradox that most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx.

 

[qwerty0]

Alan Feduccia更多认为始祖鸟是“true bird”的观点

5、羽毛
Science, 1979 Alan Feduccia: Archaeopteryx was capable of powered flight, as indicated by the asymmetrical vanes of its primary feathers, a feature found only in flying birds.

Eichstatt Archaeopteryx Conference, 1985. Feduccia criticized hypotheses for the evolution of feathers in non-aerodynamic contexts in endothermic small theropod dinosaurs. He argued that these hypotheses failed to account for the elaborate aerodynamic architecture of the feather vane and rachis, and that thermoregulatory functions would have been adequately served by hair, which is a developmentally simpler structure

简单的说，同样的始祖鸟羽毛，有些进化论科学家认为是始祖鸟不会飞行的证据，有些进化论科学家认为是始祖鸟“capable of powered flight”的证据。貌似更早一些，第一种观点更加普遍，但是从来就没有在科学界达成共识

 

[qwerty0]

更多进化论科学家支持始祖鸟羽毛结构证明始祖鸟是真正的鸟

5、羽毛

Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310: “because of its feathers [Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird"

Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 280-81: The geometry (非对称) of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds . . . According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archæopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds. . . . The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years. . . .

 

[qwerty0]

more：进化论否认始祖鸟从恐龙“进化”而来的观点

6、羽毛2－－不可能从恐龙鳞片“进化”而来

evolutionist A.H. Brush: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]." Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates." 

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds. Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.

A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.

恐龙－>鸟进化理论认为鸟的羽毛是从鳞片进化而来：

 

[qwerty0]

更多进化论科学家认为始祖鸟是“true bird”的证据

7、肺的结构

背景：“One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs. Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight.”

J.A. Ruben, 鸟类呼吸系统专家, T.D. Jones, N.R. Geist, and W.J. Hillenius, Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds, Science 278:1267–1270, 1997：

"Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropod throughout the Mesozoic poses a fundamental problem for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [or hole] in taxa transitional between theropod and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage"

The evolution of theropod into birds would have required the introduction of a serious handicap (a hole in their diaphragm), which would have severely limited their ability to breathe. As Dr. Ruben said, such a debilitating mutation "seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage."

"theropods lacked avianlike jointed or hinged ribs and an expansive sternum, structures without which proper ventilatory airflow cannot be maintained in the modern bird lung"

 

[qwerty0]

更多进化论科学家认为始祖鸟是“true bird”的观点

8、大脑和内耳结构
Alonso, P. D.; Milner, A. C.; Ketcham, R. A.; Cookson, M. J.; Rowe, T. B. (2004). The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx. Nature

全文在此

“Birds with the same body mass as Archaeopteryx have from one-third (for example, galliforms and columbiforms) to five times (for example, psittaciforms and passeriforms)
bigger brains. However, the brain of Archaeopteryx is about
three times the volume of those of non-avian reptiles of equivalent
size”

“We have plotted data for semicircular canal proportions and
cochlea length (Fig. 6a, b) for selected birds, archosaurs and nonarchosaur reptiles that place Archaeopteryx close to or within the range for modern birds (see Supplementary data), suggesting that the spatial sensory perception and auditory abilities of Archaeopteryx were similarly developed. ”

"We investigated this problem by computed tomography scanning and three-dimensional reconstruction of the braincase of the London specimen of Archaeopteryx. Here we show the reconstruction of the braincase from which we derived endocasts of the brain and inner ear. These suggest that Archaeopteryx closely resembled modern birds in the dominance of the sense of vision and in the possession of expanded auditory and spatial sensory perception in the ear. We conclude that Archaeopteryx had acquired the derived neurological and structural adaptations necessary for flight. An enlarged forebrain suggests that it had also developed enhanced somatosensory integration with these special senses demanded by a lifestyle involving flying ability."

 

[qwerty0]

特别说明：楼上关于大脑和内耳结构的证据，显然作者支持是进化论的科学家，全文比较客观地阐述他们的研究过程，没有对始祖鸟“missing link”的地位正面提出挑战，也没有对恐龙－>鸟提出任何质疑，但是文章有这样一个结论：“The remodelling of the brain towards the avian condition must have begun well before the appearance of Archaeopteryx 147 million years ago in the latest Jurassic. ”

其实阿Q在学习进化论过程中，慢慢意识到，在研究宏进化直接相关的科学家并不多，提出或者关心xx是由xx“进化”这类观点的科学家更少。本文作者应该属于第二类

 

[CatLostHerFish]

其实阿Q在学习进化论过程中，慢慢意识到，在研究宏进化直接相关的科学家并不多，提出或者关心xx是由xx“进化”这类观点的科学家更少。本文作者应该属于第二类

最近看的一本科普书（真的科普，不是阿Q号称的那种没人知道答案的科普），提到搞考古的科学家很少。也模糊记得以前看过一篇文章，说到地球上如此多的物种，相比之下，研究这些物种的科学家实在是太少。所以瞎猜，估计真正研究什么淡水鱼啥的科学家屈指可数。

继续瞎猜，科学研究需要钱，不能看到经济效益的科学方向谁来投钱？就像宏进化，除了用来跟基督的创造论者辩论，证明missing link，有别的动力吗？而且要证明宏进化，非得把几百万年的遗失全找出来，不然估计很难有说服力。现在看了半天，大家都是在急于下结论，没有谁能说服谁。问题是，遗失的历史，有可能就是找不回来了。就像有人不停的在找耶稣的DNA，还有他的家族的DNA，找不到根本也不能作为耶稣不存在的证据。有点扯远了，总之，这条路看上去吃力不讨好。

关于科学家急于下结论，也是情理中的事。看过一个科学家，用了几十年挖掘一个啥古迹，最后自己毕生的理论被人推翻了，精神崩溃自杀了。
考古学家去挖出点东西真的不容易，动则几年就搭进去了，自己不整出点故事，以拨得的喝彩，实在是对不起自己不说，学科不受人注意，是不是还是回到资金不足的困局。而且提出自己的想法，对科学本身没啥坏处。没准哪天又出个天才，忽然能把这些看似毫无逻辑的东西拼好，然后科学就又有突破了。（有个科学家就把几十年前挖出的一堆碎骨拼成恐龙，之前别的科学家都没有挑战成功，由此有所感慨。）

相比之下，生物科学估计就吃香很多。比如看到一篇研究HIV的进化的文章，研究HIV的进化树，想找到治疗爱滋的方法，这比研究所谓的宏进化要有现实意义得多，也能想象至少医药厂会感兴趣。

说完赶紧闪人，免得被砸。

 

[qwerty0]

最近看的一本科普书（真的科普，不是阿Q号称的那种没人知道答案的科普），提到搞考古的科学家很少。也模糊记得以前看过一篇文章，说到地球上如此多的物种，相比之下，研究这些物种的科学家实在是太少。所以瞎猜，估计真正研究什么淡水鱼啥的科学家屈指可数。

继续瞎猜，科学研究需要钱，不能看到经济效益的科学方向谁来投钱？就像宏进化，除了用来跟基督的创造论者辩论，证明missing link，有别的动力吗？而且要证明宏进化，非得把几百万年的遗失全找出来，不然估计很难有说服力。现在看了半天，大家都是在急于下结论，没有谁能说服谁。问题是，遗失的历史，有可能就是找不回来了。就像有人不停的在找耶稣的DNA，还有他的家族的DNA，找不到根本也不能作为耶稣不存在的证据。有点扯远了，总之，这条路看上去吃力不讨好。

关于科学家急于下结论，也是情理中的事。看过一个科学家，用了几十年挖掘一个啥古迹，最后自己毕生的理论被人推翻了，精神崩溃自杀了。
考古学家去挖出点东西真的不容易，动则几年就搭进去了，自己不整出点故事，以拨得的喝彩，实在是对不起自己不说，学科不受人注意，是不是还是回到资金不足的困局。而且提出自己的想法，对科学本身没啥坏处。没准哪天又出个天才，忽然能把这些看似毫无逻辑的东西拼好，然后科学就又有突破了。（有个科学家就把几十年前挖出的一堆碎骨拼成恐龙，之前别的科学家都没有挑战成功，由此有所感慨。）

相比之下，生物科学估计就吃香很多。比如看到一篇研究HIV的进化的文章，研究HIV的进化树，想找到治疗爱滋的方法，这比研究所谓的宏进化要有现实意义得多，也能想象至少医药厂会感兴趣。

说完赶紧闪人，免得被砸。

多谢还来不及怎么会砸呢？

 

[lfe634]

建議把本帖標題改得中性一點，可以避免無謂的衝突。
這裡只想提一個觀點：

今天和一個一生信教的年長同事剛好聊到基督教，他說有一種還挺流行的說法，是舊約時代的神無所謂善惡，只在乎 "Excellency" (姑且稱之為實力主義，"只要不信我的就去死好了" 的霸道神)，而新約時代才衍生出善惡的觀念，此後信徒才把一切的善觀念都歸給了神，並且弄出了對比的魔鬼。這是基本教義派無法接受的想法，但在比較開放的教派也願意當成一種可能性接受。神如果不是善的，那他還是什麼？超越了善惡，無比的 "mysterious"。

聖經一開頭就講，神說吃了「分辨善惡樹的果子」，能分辨善惡，就一定會死。自己一直沒有看見對這一點一個精確的解釋。只是提另一棵「生命樹」來轉移焦點，或把分辨善惡樹簡化為「知識樹」來去掉不好解釋的部份 (英文翻譯是 "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", 不是 Tree of Knowledge)，這樣扯上說人妄想擁有權力，因此該死，但始終無法精準地解釋為什麼神說「人分辨了善惡就會死」。而且這故事也代表人在一開始是不分辨善惡的。

與上述的說法合併一看，倒挺有趣了。世界上本來沒有善惡，不過是自然的規律而已。人一去分辨善惡，也就自己是善，別人是惡，殺來殺去，「一定會死」了。神要人不要去分辨善惡，還是挺用心良苦的呢。而這善惡都是人造的後天價值的想法也與中國的道家近似：聖人不死，大盜不止。當然，後來的中國思想也採用了儒家，也像新約時代一樣把道德全加在一個個聖賢身上。

而人類也就一直期待著聖人救世主。

 

[qwerty0]

更多进化论科学家认为始祖鸟是“true bird”的观点

9、始祖鸟的胸骨
始祖鸟缺乏sternum, or breastbone, 被认为始祖鸟缺乏飞行能力，半鸟半龙的最重要证据之一。“However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, discovered in 1992, disproved this argument. That fossil did contain a sternum”。This newly discovered fossil was described in Nature magazine:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable.

 

[qwerty0]

补充＃848的证据 － Alan Feduccia更多认为始祖鸟是“true bird”的观点

5. 非对称羽毛

Alan Feduccia also points to this asymmetric structure in stating that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird: The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; nonflying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings.

 

[qwerty0]

补充＃847关于反对始祖鸟从恐龙“进化”而来的证据

4、爪子的进化

In reality, there is no easy solution to this question of bird origins. . . The problem for this view is the long evolutionary gap, with no convincing intermediates. What we need is a proto-Archaeopteryx find to complement the numerous post-Archaeopteryx finds that are now being made. But for the time being this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaurs' I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur-origin orthodoxy. （ Richard Hinchliffe, "The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?," Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 596-597）

 

[都米搜]

This one is hilarious.

100 Reasons Why Evolution is So Stupid - YouTube

基督徒不好笑，是你自己太可怜。