誠惶誠恐 2009-10-19 15:37
【轉載】方舟子：澄江動物群挑戰達爾文進化論了嗎？
[size=15px][b][size=4]方舟子：澄江動物群挑戰達爾文進化論了嗎？
[/size][/b] 文/方舟子
寒武紀開始於5.7億年前，結束於5.1億年前，是地質年代古生代的第一個紀。寒武紀之前的地層的動物化石較少，而在寒武紀的地層中，發現了種類繁多的動物化石，有的古生物學家甚至認為動物各門的祖先在這個時期都已出現，稱為「寒武紀物種大爆發」。最具代表性的寒武紀動物群是1909年在加拿大發現的布爾吉斯頁巖動物群。1984年，在雲南澄江發現的寒武紀動物群，可與布爾吉斯頁巖動物群相媲美，日益引起國際學術界的重視。
寒武紀物種大爆發歷來是神創論者反對進化論的一個理由。自從澄江動物群被發現並引起轟動後，經過一些媒體誇大其詞的宣揚和某些傳教士的有意歪曲，「進化論解釋不了寒武紀物種大爆發」的論調在華人當中也頗為流行。最近，由中國科學院南京地質古生物所陳均遠、雲南大學侯先光和西北大學舒德干主持的「澄江動物群與寒武紀大爆發」項目獲得國家自然科學獎一等獎，已被發現20年的澄江動物群一時又成為新聞話題。這些報道大同小異，其中新華社的報道是這麼說的：
「地球上的生命何時大量出現？『寒武紀大爆發』究竟產生了什麼？中國科學院、雲南大學和西北大學的科學家陳均遠、侯先光和舒德干歷時20年，共同完成了『澄江動物群與寒武紀大爆發』科研項目，通過對澄江動物群化石的發現和研究，在世界上首次揭示了『寒武紀大爆發』的整體輪廓，證實幾乎所有的動物祖先都曾站在同一起跑線上。」
「澄江動物群因1984年7月1日在雲南省澄江縣首次發現而得名，是寒武紀早期（距今約5.3億年）的一個多門類動物化石群，不僅動物類型多，而且十分珍稀地保存了生物的軟體構造，首次栩栩如生地再現了遠古海洋生命的壯麗景觀和現生動物的原始特徵。」
「三位科學家說，『澄江動物群的地質年代正處於「寒武紀大爆發」時期，它讓我們如實地看到5.3億年前動物群的真實面貌，各種各樣的動物在「寒武紀大爆發」時期迅速起源，現在生活在地球上的各個動物門類幾乎都已出現，而不是經過長時間的演化慢慢變來的。』」
如果如這三位科學家所言，各個動物門類「不是經過長時間的演化慢慢變來的」，那麼它們又是怎麼來的呢？他們的言下之意是在較短的時間內快速演化而來的（「演化」和「進化」在生物學上為同義詞，都是英文evolution的翻譯，下面依據一般習慣用「進化」），但是語焉不詳，記者又未做補充，於是在一些人聽來，竟然就是在否定動物是進化而來的。一家著名網站在轉載這則報道時，用的標題赫然就是「澄江動物群證實幾乎所有動物並非演化而來」，去掉了「慢慢」兩字，非同小可，等於是完全否定了進化論，於是由生物進化的速度快慢之爭，變成了生物進化的有無之爭了。《科技日報》有關報道的題目乾脆就叫「澄江動物群揭寒武紀之謎中國學者挑戰進化論」！另外一種常見的說法則是「寒武紀大爆發挑戰達爾文」，不僅大眾媒體、基督教的宣傳品這麼說，而且某些專家的文章也這麼說，例如陳均遠《寒武紀大爆發和多細胞動物構型方案的起源》一文中，有一小節的題目就叫做「挑戰達爾文」，聲稱達爾文「關於生命演化的各種解釋，事實上都處於科學假說階段」。
達爾文進化論到現在是否還只是「科學假說」？它是否面臨著生物學新發現的挑戰呢？我們得看看達爾文進化究竟說的是什麼。達爾文提出的進化論主要包括四個子學說：
一，一般進化論：物種是可變的，現有的物種是從別的物種變來的，一個物種可以變成新的物種。這一點，早已被生物地理學、比較解剖學、比較胚胎學、古生物學和分子生物學等學科的觀察、實驗所證實，我們現在甚至可以在實驗室、野外直接觀察到新物種的產生。所以，這是一個科學事實，其可靠程度跟「地球是圓的」、「物質由原子組成」一樣。在今天，除了極其個別的由於宗教信仰偏見而無視事實的人，實際上已無生物學家否認生物進化的事實。
二，共同祖先學說：所有的生物都來自共同的祖先。分子生物學發現了所有的生物都使用同一套遺傳密碼，生物化學揭示了所有生物在分子水平上有高度的一致性，最終證實了達爾文這一遠見卓識。所以，這也是一個被普遍接受的科學事實。
三，自選選擇學說：自然選擇是進化的主要機制。自然選擇的存在，是已被無數觀察和實驗所證實的，所以，這也是一個科學事實。但是，現在學術界一般認為，自然選擇的使用範圍並不像達爾文設想的那麼廣泛。自然選擇是適應性進化（即生物體對環境的適應）的機制，對於非適應性的進化，有基因漂移等其他機制。也就是說，不能用自然選擇來解釋所有的進化現象。考慮到適應性進化是生物進化的核心現象，說自然選擇是進化的主要機制，也是成立的。
四，漸變論：生物進化的步調是漸變式的，是一個在自然選擇作用下累積微小的優勢變異的逐漸改進的過程，而不是躍變式的。這是達爾文進化論中較有爭議的部分。在達爾文在世時以及死後相當長一段時間，大部分生物學家，特別是古生物學家，都相信生物進化是能夠出現躍變的，認為新的形態和器官是源自大的躍變，而不是微小的變異在自然選擇的作用下緩慢而逐漸地累積下來的。包括赫胥黎在內的一些古生物學家由於強調生物化石的不連續性，而持這種觀點。在遺傳學誕生之後的一段時間內，早期遺傳學家們由於強調遺傳性狀的不連續性，也普遍接受躍變論。在20世紀40年代，「現代綜合」學說將遺傳學和自然選擇學說成功地結合起來，漸變論逐漸佔了優勢。但是近二、三十年來，古生物學和進化發育生物學的研究表明，生物進化過程很可能是漸變和躍變兩種模式都存在的，躍變論又有抬頭的趨勢。不過，進化論所說的躍變，除了某些非常特殊的情形（例如植物經雜交出現新種），並非是指在一代或數代之間發生的進化，而可能經歷了數千年、數萬年乃至數百萬年，只不過以地質年代來衡量顯得很短暫而已。
寒武紀大爆發挑戰的就是漸變論，但是並不能否證漸變論。它即使成立，也不過表明進化有時候是能夠以躍變的方式進行的，並不能否認進化在其他時候是以漸變的方式進行的。寒武紀大爆發更不會挑戰進化論。幾乎所有動物的「門」都在寒武紀早期出現，絕不意味著這些動物祖先不是進化而來的，更不意味著它們之後沒有發生進化。神創論者在介紹寒武紀大爆發時，試圖給人這種印象：幾乎所有的動物都是同時突然出現的，以後只有滅絕而沒有進化。其實完全不是這麼回事。第一，在寒武紀之前，動物已經過了漫長的進化過程。自五十年代以來，古生物學家已在世界各地三十個地方發現了大量的寒武紀之前的多細胞生物乃至動物，數量最多、最為聞名的在四個地方：澳大利亞的埃迪亞加拉山（Ediacara Hill）（因此這段時期被稱為埃迪亞加拉紀（Ediacarian））、加拿大紐芬蘭的錯誤點（Mistake Point）、俄羅斯的白海海岸和納米比亞。此外還有中國甕安動物群，據稱是迄今發現的最古老的實體化石動物群。這些寒武紀之前的多細胞生物包括軟珊瑚、海蜇、蠕蟲和其他稀奇古怪的生物。對這些多細胞生物是否是寒武紀動物的直接祖先，以前有爭議，因為在1995年之前從這些多細胞生物到寒武紀動物還存在一段地質空白，所以有專家主張這些早期多細胞生物全部滅絕，在寒武紀又再來一次從單細胞到多細胞的進化。在1995年，在納米比亞火山灰層中出現了大量的寒武紀之前的多細胞生物，恰好補上了這段空白，所以，現在已很少有專家懷疑前寒武紀的多細胞生物和寒武紀的動物沒有相承關係。第二，寒武紀的動物並不是「同時」出現的，而是持續了幾百萬年，這在進化史上當然是短時間，但對神創論來說，卻是長得不可思議。第三，「幾乎所有動物的門」在寒武紀地層出現並不等於「幾乎所有動物的種」在那時候都已出現。事實上，寒武紀的動物一般地只是那個門的原始物種，以後幾乎全都滅絕了，後來的物種是進化來的。比如，寒武紀只存在少數幾種原始的脊索動物，而豐富多彩的脊椎動物各類群，包括魚類、兩棲類、爬行類、哺乳類和鳥類，都是在寒武紀之後從原始脊索動物逐漸進化來的。現代脊椎動物各物種更都有了幾億年的進化史。
為什麼幾乎所有動物的門會在較短的時間（數百萬年！）內進化出來，生物學家們提出了不少的解釋，目前被較為廣泛接受的是Hox基因調控理論。Hox基因是一種「同源異形」基因，是動物形態藍圖的設計師，在發育過程中控制身體各部分形成的位置。如果同源異形基因發生突變，會使動物某一部位的器官變成其他部位的器官，叫做同源異形。比如，讓某個同源異形基因發生突變，能使果蠅的身體到處長眼睛，在該長眼睛的地方長出翅膀，或者在該長觸角的地方長出了腳。Hox基因在所有的脊椎動物和絕大部分無脊椎動物中都存在，調控的機理也相似，這表明它可能是最古老的基因之一，在最早的動物祖先中就已存在。Hox的突變一開始時在胚胎早期引起的變化不大，但隨著組織、器官的分化定型，突變的影響逐步被放大，導致身體結構發生重大的改變。這可以解釋寒武紀物種大爆發。那時候基因結構、發育過程都較簡單，Hox的基因突變容易被保留，結果導致了身體結構的多姿多彩。
達爾文進化論在經過修正後，到現在仍然是生物進化論的主流學說，具有無比強大的生命力。但是為什麼我們每隔一段時間，就能聽到達爾文進化論遭受挑戰、被質疑乃至被否定的說法呢？這有宗教因素，也有思想、文化因素（許多不信基督教的人文學者也不喜歡達爾文進化論的機械色彩），值得注意的是，還有科學家的心理因素。一些科學家為了強調自己研究的課題的重要性，會有意無意地誇大其研究成果的價值，甚至有的人明明站在巨人的肩膀上，卻又巴不得一腳把巨人踢倒以顯示自己的偉大。這就要求我們，對驚人的說法要格外保持警惕，不要輕信。
2004.3.18
[url=http://tech.sina.com.cn/other/2004-04-07/1201345337.shtml]http://tech.sina.com.cn/other/2004-04-07/1201345337.shtml[/url][/size]
[[i] 本帖最後由 誠惶誠恐 於 2009-10-19 15:02 編輯 [/i]]
khadafy 2009-10-22 02:28
[size=4] 美國加州大學伯克利分校法學教授詹腓力（Phillip Johnson），被譽為是最有資格批判進化論的人。[/size][size=4][/size] [size=4] [/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 因為他曾任美國大法官華倫（Warren）的助手，他的專長是分析明辨律師在辯論時所用的詞藻和邏輯。當他讀到進化論的文獻時，隨及意識到裡面充滿著許多邏輯上有問題的雄辯與遁辭。[/size][size=4][/size] [size=4] [/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 所以他以法官的身份，多次質問：「我們怎樣才能知道『進化論』是真實的？確鑿的證據何在？」他在自己寫的一本書《審判達爾文》（Darwin on Trial）中做了這樣的總結：「化石向我們展示的都是突然出現的有機體，沒有逐步進化的任何跡象……這些有機體一旦出現，基本上就不再變了，哪怕過了幾百萬年，不管氣候環境如何變化。[/size][size=4][/size] [size=4] [/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 如果達爾文的理論成立，這些條件本應該引起物種的巨大變化。」 [/size]
[size=4] 事實上我們還發現關於猿人的報導，很大部分是投機和欺騙多於事實。下面這個爪哇人（Java Man）的事例足以說明之：您可能不知道爪哇人被認為是猿人，其基本證據僅僅只有一根腿骨、三顆牙齒和一部分頭蓋骨。[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 腿骨像是人的，而頭骨卻像是類人猿的。但是這兩部分化石是在同一水平的岩石上相距十四米（四十五英尺）的地方發現的，現場也有真正的人頭骨，而後一部分事實卻被隱藏了許多年。[/size] [size=4] [/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 這些化石的發現者都波士（Dubois）於其晚年才宣佈它們並非猿人的遺骨，而更像是一隻巨大的長臂猿的骨骼。[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 然而，進化論者拒絕接受他所說的，於是，建立在荒謬可笑並少得可憐的證據上的爪哇人仍舊被拼湊起來，作為確實存在過的生物出現在教科書裡。 [/size][size=4][/size][size=4][/size][size=4] [/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 以上所述分析了人由猿人進化而來的說法不但薄弱且漏洞百出，從另一方面來看，其實許多考古學家的發現都直接地反駁了進化論支持者的論點，例如考古學家在世界各地陸續發現了遠古不同時期人類的直接證據，從幾萬年前至幾億年前的人類腳印到人體的骨骼化石。[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 以下列出部分已被證實的發現。 [/size]
[size=4][/size][size=4]五·四億至二·五億年前的人類鞋印 [/size][size=4][/size][size=4] [/size]
[size=4]三葉蟲是五·四億至二ܮ五億年前的生物，早已絕跡。[/size]
[size=4]美國科學家米斯特（William J.Meister）在猶他州羚羊泉（Antelope Springs）的寒武紀沉積岩中竟然發現一隻成人穿著便鞋踩上去的鞋印和一個小孩的腳印，長約一○·二五英吋（二十六公分），寬約三·五英吋（八·九公分），嵌在岩層中，就在一隻三葉蟲的化石上面。[/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 經猶他（Utah）大學著名的化學家Melvin A. Cook 鑒這的確是人的鞋印。 [/size]
[size=4][/size][size=4][/size][size=4]二·七億年前的人類腳印 [/size][size=4]一八一七年，考古學家Henry R. Schoolcraft和Thomas H. Benton在美國密西西比河西岸附近的一塊石灰岩石板上，發現了兩個人類的腳印，長約一○·五英吋（二十七公分），腳趾較分散，腳掌平展，與長期習慣於不穿鞋走路的腳印相似。[/size][size=4] [/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4] 腳步強健有力，腳印自然。挖掘所得的各種跡象均表明：其壓痕是在岩石很軟時踩上去的。據鑒監定，這塊石灰岩石板有二·七億年的歷史。 [/size][size=4][/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4]二·三五億年前的人類腳印
在中國雲南富源縣三疊紀岩石上面發現有四個人的腳印。據考證，這些岩石已有二·三五億年的歷史。 [/size]
[[i] 本帖最後由 khadafy 於 2009-10-22 02:31 編輯 [/i]]
誠惶誠恐 2009-11-4 18:51
[size=3][b][size=5]Claim CC102:[/size][/b]
Apparent human shoe prints were found in a slab with obvious trilobite fossils in 1968, by William J. Meister, at Antelope Springs, forty-three miles northwest of Delta, Utah. The heel of one print was worn just as shoe heels wear today. Source:Brown, Walt, 1995. [i]In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood[/i]. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 25. [url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences34.html][color=Blue]http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences34.html[/color][/url]
[b][size=5]Response:[/size][/b]
[list=1][*]The trilobites are real ([i]Elrathia kingii[/i]), but the "sandal print" is a spall pattern. The heel of the Meister print is not worn down but is caused by a long crack running across the rock. It lacks the diagnostic features that a real sandal print has. There are many other weathering features in the area identical in character to the so-called sandal prints but in a variety of shapes. They do not occur in a trail but as isolated prints (Conrad 1981).
[*]Geochemical processes, such as solution penetrations, spalling, and other weathering, have been well documented to produce such features on the shales of the Wheeler Formation, where the prints were found (Stokes 1986).[/list][b][size=5]Links:[/size][/b]
Kuban, Glen J., 1998. The "Meister Print": An alleged human sandal print from Utah. [url=http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm][color=Blue]http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm[/color][/url] or [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html][color=Blue]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html[/color][/url]
[b][size=5]References:[/size][/b]
[list=1][*]Conrad, Ernest C., 1981. Tripping over a trilobite: A study of the Meister Tracks. [i]Creation/Evolution[/i] 6: 30-33.[*]Stokes, William Lee, 1986. Alleged human footprint from Middle Cambrian strata, Milliard County, Utah. [i]Journal of Geological Education[/i] 34: 187-190.[/list]
Further Reading:Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Chapter 48: Out-Of-Order Fossils. [i]Science and Earth History--The Evolution/Creation Controversy[/i]. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 459-472.
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC102.html]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC102.html[/url][/size]
[[i] 本帖最後由 誠惶誠恐 於 2009-11-4 10:53 編輯 [/i]]
誠惶誠恐 2009-11-4 19:08
[size=3]說詹腓力（Phillip E. Johnson）「被譽為是最有資格批判進化論的人」只是圍內人互相吹捧。請看學歷界對他的批評：
[indent][b][size=5]Criticisms[/size][/b]
The most serious specific allegation leveled by a number of critics is that Johnson is often [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty][color=#0000ff]intellectually dishonest[/color][/url] in his arguments advancing intelligent design and attacking the scientific community.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#cite_note-32][color=#0000ff][33][/color][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#cite_note-Talkreason-33][color=#0000ff][34][/color][/url] For example, he has been accused of numerous [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation][color=#0000ff]equivocations[/color][/url], particularly involving the term naturalism which can refer either to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Definition_of_Methodological_Naturalism][color=#0000ff]methodological naturalism[/color][/url] or to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism][color=#0000ff]philosophical naturalism[/color][/url].[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#cite_note-34][color=#0000ff][35][/color][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#cite_note-35][color=#0000ff][36][/color][/url]
In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism, one reviewer argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, a professor of Biology, described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever read.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#cite_note-Talkreason-33][color=#0000ff][34][/color][/url]
Since Johnson is considered by those both inside and outside the movement to be the father and architect of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement][color=#0000ff]intelligent design movement[/color][/url] and its strategies,[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#cite_note-36][color=#0000ff][37][/color][/url] Johnson's statements are often used to validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping the obvious religious content from their anti-evolution assertions as a means of avoiding the legal restrictions of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment][color=#0000ff]Establishment Clause[/color][/url], a view reinforced by the December 2005 ruling in the [i][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District][color=#0000ff]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[/color][/url][/i] trial which found that [url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_6:_curriculum,_conclusion#H._Conclusion][color=#0000ff]intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature[/color][/url]. They argue that ID is simply an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief and thus that the "Teach the Controversy" exhortation is disingenuous, particularly when contrasted to his statements in the Wall Street Journal and other secular media. Critics point out that contrary to the Discovery Institute's and Johnson's claims, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution][color=#0000ff]theory of evolution[/color][/url] is well-supported and widely accepted within the scientific community; there is little controversy on a scientific level. Popular disagreement with evolutionary theory should not be considered as a reason for challenging it as a scientifically valid subject to be taught, they contend.
In making their case, critics of Johnson commonly point to his central role in the Discovery Institute's carefully-orchestrated campaign known as the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy][color=#0000ff]Wedge Strategy[/color][/url]. The Wedge Strategy, as envisioned by the Discovery Institute, is designed to leave the science establishment looking close-minded in the short term with a long-term goal being a redefinition of science that centers on the removal of methodological naturalism from the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science][color=#0000ff]philosophy of science[/color][/url] and the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method][color=#0000ff]scientific method[/color][/url], thereby allowing for supernatural explanations to be introduced as science (see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_realism][color=#0000ff]Theistic realism[/color][/url]). This would have the net effect of bringing a religious orientation into the public schools via science classrooms. Critics note that Johnson, as a principal officer of the Discovery Institute, often cites an overall plan to put the United States on a course toward the theocracy envisioned in the Wedge Strategy, and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy intentionally obfuscates its agenda. According to Johnson, "[i]The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Methodist_University][color=#0000ff]Southern Methodist University[/color][/url] in March 1992.[/i]"[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson#cite_note-37][color=#0000ff][38][/color][/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson[/url][/size][/indent]
[[i] 本帖最後由 誠惶誠恐 於 2009-11-4 11:25 編輯 [/i]]
誠惶誠恐 2009-11-4 19:35
[b][size=5]Another Dishonest Creationist Quote[/size][/b]
Post of the Month Runner-Up: February 2004
by catshark
------
Subject: Phillip Johnson's dishonest quote
Date: 16 February 2004
Message-ID: [email=9s20301dcdb0r1akki0n27cdb4mj33frr7@4ax.com]9s20301dcdb0r1akki0n27cdb4mj33frr7@4ax.com[/email]
-----
In looking at Phillip Johnson's book, [i]Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds[/i] (Intervarsity Press, 1997), for possible use in the [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html][color=#0000ff]Quote Mine Project[/color][/url], I discovered a particularly dishonest example that I thought should be brought to everyone's attention, even though it isn't really suitable for inclusion in the QMP. Although this is rather long, I think it is such a revealing example that it is worth the time to read it.
First of all, here is the context Johnson uses the quote in:
[indent]What is even more interesting is that the evidence for Darwinian macroevolutionary transformations is most conspicuously absent just where the fossil evidence is most plentiful -- among marine invertebrates. (These animals are plentiful as fossils because they are so frequently covered in sediment upon death, whereas land animals are exposed to scavengers and to the elements.) If the theory were true, and if the correct explanation for the difficulty in finding ancestors were the incompleteness of the fossil record, then the evidence for macroevolution- arv transitions would be most plentiful where the record is most complete.
Here is how Niles Eldredge, one of the world's leading experts on invertebrate fossils, describes the actual situation:
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change -- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."
Eldredge also explains the pressures that could easily lead a forlorn paleontologist to construe a doubtful fossil as an ancestor or evolutionary transitional. Science takes for granted that the ancestors existed, and the transitions occurred, so scientists ought to be finding positive evidence if they expect to have successful careers. According to Eldredge, "the pressure for results, positive results, is enormous." [DD p. 60-61]
[/indent]Johnson does not use standard footnotes or bibliographies to document such quotes but, instead, he provides informal "Research Notes" at the end of the book, a [i]highly[/i] unusual practice for an attorney and one that can be used to hide a multitude of sins. He gives only this information about the above: "The quotation from Niles Eldredge about how evolution 'never seems to happen' is from his book [i]Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory[/i] (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 95" [DD p. 125]. No mention of the snippet he quotes in the last paragraph is made, even though he is blatantly attempting to use it to accuse scientists of intellectual bias at best and outright dishonesty and cupidity at worse.
Of course, when a creationist quotes Gould or Eldredge, it is all but certain to involve Punctuated Equilibrium. This is no exception. The long quote from Eldredge is fairly standard quote mining, which I'll deal with elsewhere. It is the snippet that is particularly dishonest and which I want to address here.
As I think will become clear, it is little wonder that Johnson did not bother to give a cite for the snippet: "the pressure for results, positive results, is enormous". It comes from Eldredge's [i]Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria[/i], p. 59. As might be anticipated, the general issue under discussion is stasis in the fossil record.
But, first, some context. In this section of the book, Eldredge is discussing his early career as a paleontologist studying trilobite fossils, working towards his Ph.D. thesis. He describes his extensive travels across the Northeastern and Midwestern United States collecting fossils of [i]Phacops rana[/i], the particular species he was studying, and his initial puzzlement over the lack of obvious evolutionary change in the specimens he was collecting from different strata. By the then prevalent view, a slow but discernible accumulation of evolutionary change should have been observed. As he now recalls his confusion:
[indent]The European - North American collision that began about 380 million years ago did more than change the face of the globe: it also grossly affected the face of life in North America. Many of the Hamilton [trilobite] species that were to dominate American life for the next 8 million years were immigrants from Europe and Africa . . . But I knew nothing of this. . . . I chose to doubt my own ability to analyze trilobite anatomy. . . . [A]ll the trilobites really did look the same. . . . no real source of disquiet while I was driving across New York, perhaps, but soon to become a focus of desperation as the search broadened and the analysis deepened. (p. 58-59)
[/indent]And now for the part where the snippet occurs:
[indent]Like all other humans starting out on some quest, on some project with a definite goal, scientists are determined to get results. Complicating the normal routine is the hassle of obtaining a Ph.D. A piece of doctoral research is really an apprenticeship, and the dissertation a comprehensive report that shows the candidate's ability to frame, and successfully pursue, an original piece of scientific research. Sounds reasonable, but the pressure for results, positive results, is enormous. If your choice is to look at evolution, and you've carefully picked out a trilobite species that meets all the criteria for a good example, and if your preliminary forays reveal a rather distressing sameness to the beasts from New York to Iowa, from the beginning of Hamilton time on up through its last gasp 8 million years later, a feeling of desperation is inevitable. For little or no change to be readily apparent over all that time and territory seemed then inconceivable -- given the goals, the aspirations and, really, the basic underlying assumptions I brought to the study in first place. Despair came full-blown late one particular afternoon in Alpena, Michigan, when, as my clothes were drying in a launderette, I took an exquisite specimen out of my pocket, pored over it with a magnifying lens and concluded it was the very same creature I had been seeing all through the Appalachians and all over the Midwest. (p. 59)
[/indent]He then spends numerous pages explaining the exhaustive studies he made of the fossils he had collected and his rediscovery of the fact, previously noted in the literature, that the number of lenses making up the compound eye of [i]P. rana[/i] varied over time. He sums it up as follows:
[indent]Now, in the entire 8 million years of Hamilton time, the greatest (though not the sole) amount of modification wrought by evolution in the [i]Phacops rana[/i] stock was the net reduction from 18 to 15 columns of lenses. Hardly prodigious, this degree of anatomical retooling falls well within the normal bounds of "microevolution" -- loosely speaking, the kind and degree of relatively minor change that marks the difference between closely related species, and the sort of change that can be seen in rudimentary form within a single variable species. The internal, within-species variation is then supposed to supply the raw stuff for the differences we see between species -- and ultimately on up through genera, families and the really larger groups of organisms.
But, at least in the Midwest where parts of the evolutionary story of the lenses first began to come clear, we see something out of whack with prevailing expectations -- two things, really. We have, it is true, a good but far- from-perfect record, and a less-than-perfect sampling of what really is there. But as we climb up those rocks and check those samples, over what must be, in sum total, a 3-or-4-million-year period, we see some oscillation, some variation, back and forth (the two subspecies coming and going with shifting substrate) -- but no real net change at all, and no change especially in the anatomical feature, those columns of lenses in the eyes, which end up showing the greatest amount of change within the entire lineage. This is the first element: simple lack of change. (p. 70)
[/indent]He then proceeds to discuss how the results of this study was, for him, the genesis of the thinking that led to Punctuated Equilibrium. The important thing to note, however, is how this story is the [i]exact[/i] opposite of what Johnson would have you take from the snippet.
Eldredge was, of course, looking to obtain his Ph.D. and advance his career, so it is hardly surprising that he was feeling desperate to find out what was "wrong" about what he was doing; why he was not finding what he "should" under the best theory at the time. But pressure of this sort is hardly unique to scientists. Should we assume that, say, aspiring lawyers, faced with an inability to fit their knowledge within the questions asked on the bar exam, would take a "doubtful" course of action by cheating "if they expect to have successful careers"?
In fact, [i]despite[/i] having found differences in the trilobites he was studying, he did [i]not[/i] try "to construe a doubtful fossil as an . . . evolutionary transitional" in an attempt to salvage his career. Nor did he ignore contrary data in the face of his admitted "underlying assumptions". Instead, he faced up to the data, presented his results and eventually participated in extending, instead of "propping up", the prevalent view. While I prefer to believe that this was the result of Eldredge's personal honor and commitment to his profession, there could hardly have been a different outcome. Eldredge's conclusions and data would have been scrutinized closely, not only by the thesis examiners but, should he have tried to have had it published, as he was all but required to do, it would have been pored over by all the experts in the field. Trying to pass off a conclusion supporting the "received view" based on openly shared contrary data would have been the death of his career, not its salvation.
Johnson's preference at that point might have been for Eldredge and the rest of science to have thrown up their collective hands and declare all of life on Earth to be the inexplicable result of a mysterious (or not so mysterious) "designer", instead of seeking different answers within the broad theory. But for Johnson to use Eldredge's words in an attempt to cast aspersions on the motives of scientists is the height of cynicism, especially when the expressed objective of his book is to protect students who have a "strong Christian commitment" from the alleged "materialism" of science.
I do not think it amiss to suggest that, if Johnson truly wishes to encourage Christian commitment, he might better start where the Scriptures suggest: with personal example.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement, but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
- William A. Dembski -
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb04.html#run[/url]
誠惶誠恐 2009-11-4 19:44
[size=3][b][size=5]人與恐龍共存？神創論者的彌天大謊[/size][/b]
方舟子
05/2001
文章提供：脫苦海
In Article <jazhang.795935397@aries> "jazhang@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Aubrey Zhang)" says:
[indent]《海外校園》雜誌 Overseas Campus Magazine
電子版 Electronic Version
校園福音團契主辦
１９９４年６月第六期
【６】 聖經中有關於恐龍的記錄嗎？
＠張鈞
人類發現恐龍化石以後，這段經文的翻譯才變得明朗化。了解恐龍習俗的不難看出這段經文描述的是恐龍。另外，根據經文１５節我們可以知道，約伯時代（約四千五百年前）的人們是見過恐龍的。很巧的是，在美國的德克薩斯州曾發現兩串腳印：一串被証明是恐龍的；幾米之外是一串酷似人的腳印──但進化論學者固執地不肯承認是人的腳印。當然他們有合情的理由：雖然其他各個方面的考查都証明這是人的腳印，但只有一點不吻合，就是這串腳印出奇的大──與恐龍的幾乎一樣。如果我們看看聖經中創世記６：４就明白了。這節經文提到：“那時侯有偉人在地上，後來神的兒子們與人的女子們交合生子，那就是上古英武有名的人”。有些讀者看到這里可能要有異義：用聖經証明考古不科學！但很多事實証明：科學的方法（如同位素測定年代）也並不向我們想象的那樣精確無誤，差之千裏是思空見慣的事。本人不想在此辯論，只請讀者在這里“仁者見仁，義者見義”了。
註：此文未刊載于本雜誌的印刷版，系本考訪版編者自加。
[/indent]張先生在文中所提到的德州「巨人」腳印，是指 Paluxy River（Glen Rose, Texas）河床上發現的恐龍腳印，一直被一些外行誤以為是人的腳印。１９７０年左右，一些神創論者拍了一部電影叫 Footprints in Stone，聲稱恐龍和巨人的腳印混雜在一起，是恐龍和人曾經相處的証明。科學界對神創論者的無稽之談向來很少理會的，但這部電影在社會上廣泛放映，引起了不小的反響，神創論者又借此大作文章，稱之為否證進化論的最有力的證據。為了澄清此事，在八十年代初科學家組團到該地考察，很快得出結論：那些所謂「巨人腳印」跟周圍的恐龍腳印一樣，都是由同一種兩足三趾的食肉類恐龍留下的，只不過由於踩在爛泥中，泥土向腳印凹陷，使得腳印變小，只有中心部分留下，看起來就有點象人的腳印了。但是神創論者拒絕這個結論。到了１９８４年夏天，由於長期無雨，Paluxy River 乾枯，原來沉在水下的腳印暴露出水面，模糊不清的腳印邊緣也看得清楚了，清清楚楚地顯示跟周圍的恐龍腳印沒有兩樣，也是三個腳趾。在科學家們的一再督促下，神創論的幾位頭面人物到現場觀看這些暴露出來的腳印，被迫在神創論的刊物上登文承認那是恐龍腳印，並答應不再以此為攻擊進化論的理由。國際權威學術雜誌Ｎａｔｕｒｅ在當時曾報道此事（Nature 320:308），美國第一大報 New York Time 在１９８６年６月１７日也報道此事，標題是「Man Track Revealed to Be Dinosaurian」， Time Magazine 在 １９８６年６月３０日這一期也作了報道，標題是「Defeat for Strict Creationists」。這一事件，不過再次說明瞭神創論是多麼荒唐，神創論者是多麼無知。
一個在十年前就已被進化論者和神創論者（以ＩＣＲ為代表）一致認定的醜聞，張先生在今天卻不理會別人的指正，作為最新發現大肆宣揚，並送去永久存檔。我建議太陽升ｇｏｐｈｅｒ站不要存留張先生的這篇文章，如果要存，也希望能把我的這篇指正與之放在同一目錄。《海外校園》雜誌經常登載攻擊進化論的文章，那些作者不過是出於對現代生物學的無知，本不必加以理會。但像張先生這樣有意說謊，已有違作人的一般准則，遑論自許追求真理的基督徒的良心？至于張先生在文中聲稱同位素測年代方法並不準確，差之千里是司空見慣的事。張先生作為一個化學工作者，想必有自己獨到的體會，敢於質疑被科學界一致認同的同位素測年代方法，能否講講自己的理由，列舉文獻說明那些「司空見慣」的「差之千里」的事？張先生若能推翻科學界一致承認的地球有四十六億年的歷史的定論，証明聖經中上帝在幾千年前創造了世界的記載，我看得諾貝爾化學獎是綽綽有余了。本人洗耳恭聽張先生的指教。
[url=http://julian_yeung.tripod.com/collection/cfaq/a3.html]http://julian_yeung.tripod.com/collection/cfaq/a3.html[/url][/size]
誠惶誠恐 2009-11-4 19:46
[size=3][b][size=5]人與恐龍同行？[/size][/b]
明鏡臺
05/2001
在這個課題上，小弟手上剛好有些資料，可與各位版友分享一下。
如要認真地研究「人與恐龍同行」這個課題，美國人 Glen J. Kuban 的網站就不得不去了。
網址如下：
[url=http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm]http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html[/url]
Glen J. Kuban 在此課題研究了二十多年，在他的網站中，整理及收綠了大量美國德州 Paluxy River 的腳印資料。他撰寫的論文，更被刊登在美國 Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring / Summer 1986, pp. 2-10 及 NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1989, Special Section。在他所寫的論文中，收集了大量古生物學家，恐龍專家和化石專家的論証。其結論和方舟子先生的腳印解釋相似， Paluxy River 的腳印全都是屬於一種三趾恐龍的。而且還有圖片解釋啊！
詳見：
[url=http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/tsfig1.htm]http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/tsfig1.htm[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsfig1.html]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsfig1.html[/url]
文中指出眾多專家都一致為在 Paluxy River 的二十英吋長的巨人腳印，全都沒有人類或猿猴類步行的特徵，如腳跟著地和腳趾的痕跡等。經過多番的論証後，他在文中結論中這樣說：
[indent]Many areas of the Paluxy Riverbed have already been exposed by excavators and natural forces, revealing literally hundreds of dinosaur tracks, but not one clear human footprint. If they are found, and are properly documented, I, for one, will be more than willing to acknowledge the find. However, I will not support exaggerated or unfounded claims.
A careful examination of the Paluxy evidence demonstrates that claims for human tracks in the Paluxy are not, and never have been, well supported. Of course, this does not disprove the creationist viewpoint in general, since even if humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, one would not necessarily expect to find evidence that they were walking around together in the same mud flat. Hopefully, those creationists who promoted the "man track" claims will gain at least one benefit from the refutation of the claims: incentive to be more thorough and careful in the future.
[/indent]不得不提的是， Glen J. Kuban 是一個相信有造物主的基基，但他不會以「進化論者」或「神創論者」自居。他只是以科學精神，小心求証，為找出腳印的真相而努力不懈。實在是精神可嘉。
最後，小弟有一個很怪的問題，希望和大家探討下。為什麼張鈞先生這一個「神創論者」，會認為現代人的祖先，會是一種腳掌有二十英吋長的巨人呢？我們是否由巨人「進化」而成的呢？
[url=http://julian_yeung.tripod.com/collection/cfaq/a3.html]http://julian_yeung.tripod.com/collection/cfaq/a3.html[/url][/size]
dangrek 2009-11-8 01:24
The information is very detailed
Careful scrutiny is needed:jump:
dreamer2048 2009-11-13 18:54
*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***