T*******r
发帖数: 333 | 1 littleshirt认为进化论和神创论compatible，人们“相信”进化论和他相信神创论一
致。 |
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | |
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 3 before we start this, I'd like to make sure the non-believers have a
concensus on the question: is human a random (by chance) outcome of
evolution? yes, or no.
I believe Elohim & TheRinger says "YES". Correct me if I'm wrong.
How about dramaer2 (叶公)? what's your position to that question?
"
【在 T*******r 的大作中提到】
: littleshirt认为进化论和神创论compatible，人们“相信”进化论和他相信神创论一
: 致。
|
G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 4 他们俩都吃过午饭了，thanks for asking.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: before we start this, I'd like to make sure the non-believers have a
: concensus on the question: is human a random (by chance) outcome of
: evolution? yes, or no.
: I believe Elohim & TheRinger says "YES". Correct me if I'm wrong.
: How about dramaer2 (叶公)? what's your position to that question?
:
: "
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 5 how about you? what's your take on the question?
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: 他们俩都吃过午饭了，thanks for asking.
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 6
他一向不吃午飯， thanks for asking.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: how about you? what's your take on the question?
|
d******2
发帖数: 107 | 7 Sorry, I am tired, so I'll just try to give a temperary short answer.
The appearance of homo sapiens in evolution is to some extent random and to
some extent deterministic. It is to some extent deterministic because of the
non-random improved chance of survival and reproduction that those mutated
genes confer on individuals who possess them.
I cannot agree to reduce those deterministic side of evolution to randomness
. That would ignore the mechanisms explained by biologists and the multiple
sources of evidences (genetic homology, fossil records and comparative
atanomy etc.) we have.
1. The deterministic side of evolution is like the wall guiding the way of a
drunk person. The drunk person walk as randomly as she wants, but she don't
fxxx with the chance of survival and reproduction.
2. The deterministic side of evolution is also like a stone rolling down the
hill. Its actual course is random but down it goes. And when two halfs of a
stone was found with matching broken surfaces, the logical inference is
that it broke somewhere on the way. To assume a magic man broke it is
ridiculous.
论一
compatible
random
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: before we start this, I'd like to make sure the non-believers have a
: concensus on the question: is human a random (by chance) outcome of
: evolution? yes, or no.
: I believe Elohim & TheRinger says "YES". Correct me if I'm wrong.
: How about dramaer2 (叶公)? what's your position to that question?
:
: "
|
B********e
发帖数: 19317 | 8 为什么非基们必须对人是/否随机产物这个问题要有共识呢？
非基们是三七开还是二八开，对小仙鹤回应楼主的提问有影响力吗？ |
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 9
very good question.
I shall limit my questions to those athesits who believe in scentific
explanition of the origin of life & human. 非基们 may as well have other
beliefs.
Now you may ask whether we have a concensus scentific answer to this question
- "is human a random outcome of evolution"? I leave it to the atheists to
educate me.
【在 B********e 的大作中提到】
: 为什么非基们必须对人是/否随机产物这个问题要有共识呢？
: 非基们是三七开还是二八开，对小仙鹤回应楼主的提问有影响力吗？
|
d******2
发帖数: 107 | 10 The scientific explanation of the origin of life is hard to achieve.
You have an easy answer because you use a super strong assumption (of a
omnipotent god) which includes everything and is not falsifiable.
That means if your "god" assumption is false, its falsehood could not be
demenstrated. So the "god" assumption is useless in any serious explanation
of phenomena except in explaining the behaviours of god-believers .
question
to
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: very good question.
: I shall limit my questions to those athesits who believe in scentific
: explanition of the origin of life & human. 非基们 may as well have other
: beliefs.
: Now you may ask whether we have a concensus scentific answer to this question
: - "is human a random outcome of evolution"? I leave it to the atheists to
: educate me.
|
|
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 11 這跟主題還是不相干
question
to
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: very good question.
: I shall limit my questions to those athesits who believe in scentific
: explanition of the origin of life & human. 非基们 may as well have other
: beliefs.
: Now you may ask whether we have a concensus scentific answer to this question
: - "is human a random outcome of evolution"? I leave it to the atheists to
: educate me.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 12 Thanks dramaer2 (叶公).
I guess you are arguing for the deterministic side of the "natural selection
" mechanism (the biological laws related to metabolism/reproduction/
population genetics, etc), which I (and TheRinger, etc) all agree.
But the outcome (say appearance of human) depends not only on these
biological laws to "natrual select", but also on the external environments (
states of the universe) within which "natrual selection" happens. The "
natrual" selection criteria differ in different environments/states ( say a
state of extreme high temp vs. a state of extreme low temp, will lead to two
different survial patterns ), and what "fit/survive" will depend on the
random environment/state realized, thus a random outcome. Do you agree? |
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 13 I'd like to clarify the assumptions & imiplications of 进化论, so I won't
make simple mistake like confusing the assumption with outcomes.
question
to educate me.
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
: 這跟主題還是不相干
:
: question
: to
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 14 在板上問人不如讀書。
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: I'd like to clarify the assumptions & imiplications of 进化论, so I won't
: make simple mistake like confusing the assumption with outcomes.
:
: question
: to educate me.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 15 yes, but "read" != "understand",
as I just found out from someone who claimed to "read" evoltuion theory but
failed to answer simple questions on key assumptions & implications related
to 进化论.
That's why I have to clarify the assumptions & implications first.
【在 E*****m 的大作中提到】
: 在板上問人不如讀書。
|
d******2
发帖数: 107 | 16 The evolution of human being has both the deterministic side and the random
side. To reduce that composite explanation to a simple "random outcome" is
not acceptable for me.
Even the random side of human evolution cannot support your arguments. How
can you prove a random sequence of events does not happen?
For me, something is random doesn't mean it did not happen. For example a
stone rolling down a hill can stop at a random place but it doesn't surprise
me if it stops at somewhere low. And it doesn't surprise me that 蓝菌（
Cyanobacteria which is about 2.8 billion years old）and plants can evolve to
have photosynthesis(光合作用) functions to store the energy from the sun.
And it doesn't surprise me that animals can evolve to collect those stored
energy from plants and other animals. And it doesn't surprise me that some
conscious animals can evolve to have internal representations of external
states which can be used to collect stored energy even more efficiently. It
may happen. It may not happen. It may happen earlier. It may happen later.
It may happen in our galaxy. It may happen in other galaxy. But when
evidences show that it happened now and on our planet. I am not surprised.
I am not surprised but I am amazed by the complexity and order evolved from
the environment including my own body, my own mind.
selection
(
a
two
to
the
randomness
multiple
a
t
the
a
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: Thanks dramaer2 (叶公).
: I guess you are arguing for the deterministic side of the "natural selection
: " mechanism (the biological laws related to metabolism/reproduction/
: population genetics, etc), which I (and TheRinger, etc) all agree.
: But the outcome (say appearance of human) depends not only on these
: biological laws to "natrual select", but also on the external environments (
: states of the universe) within which "natrual selection" happens. The "
: natrual" selection criteria differ in different environments/states ( say a
: state of extreme high temp vs. a state of extreme low temp, will lead to two
: different survial patterns ), and what "fit/survive" will depend on the
|
E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 17 mutation mutation
but
related
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: yes, but "read" != "understand",
: as I just found out from someone who claimed to "read" evoltuion theory but
: failed to answer simple questions on key assumptions & implications related
: to 进化论.
: That's why I have to clarify the assumptions & implications first.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 18
random
【在 d******2 的大作中提到】
: The evolution of human being has both the deterministic side and the random
: side. To reduce that composite explanation to a simple "random outcome" is
: not acceptable for me.
: Even the random side of human evolution cannot support your arguments. How
: can you prove a random sequence of events does not happen?
: For me, something is random doesn't mean it did not happen. For example a
: stone rolling down a hill can stop at a random place but it doesn't surprise
: me if it stops at somewhere low. And it doesn't surprise me that 蓝菌（
: Cyanobacteria which is about 2.8 billion years old）and plants can evolve to
: have photosynthesis(光合作用) functions to store the energy from the sun.
|
d******2
发帖数: 107 | 19 I have answered this question 3 times.
My position is that the human being evolved from the process was to some
extent deterministic, to some extent random. And I explained what I mean by
that over and over again.
Yet you ignored my answer and asked me the same question the 4th time.
and
evolution
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: random
|
l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 20 他吃饭前洗手了， thx for 阿斯克ing
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: how about you? what's your take on the question?
|
