Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
And Darwin failed to question what/who made the survived species bornt with their ability (at DNA level) to "adapt".
1. I didn't "要求達爾文那個年代的人答到DNA水平的問題". I only said "Darwin failed to question ** what/who ** made..." which doesn't require a knowledge of DNA.
2. "要求中國古代的天文學家懂得萬有引力"... Darwin wasn't a "古代" scientist. But comparing to our time, Darwin was a "古代" scientist, and Isaac Newton who discovered 萬有引力 was also a "古代" scientist. Thus "古代" is relative term. Therefore your statement has no meaning.
3. "不懂DNA不能抹殺達爾文的貢獻". Likewise no one should "抹殺" those who performed "incest" so that a blood line may be carried on ? Science is just a discovery of laws in our universe. If Darwin couldn't uncover the magic of life, some other scientist would. Every scientist presents their contribution. It is nonsense to argue who contributed most in discovery of such laws. Thus your statement said nothing.
4. "更不能推翻其理論". Obviously, DNA is already a totally different concept. Darwin only brought people to pay attention to the blood-line phenomenon which leaded to the discovery of DNA. Nothing more.\
5. "正如中國古人不懂萬有引力，但他們的曆法仍是當時世界的先進。" So "中國曆法" is a more surprising discovery? or Darwin's evolution is? or the Discovery of DNA is? I don't see the point of using "中國古人" and "中國曆法" in discussing Darwin.
6. Darwin's discovery diminishing the role of religion in human life, which indirectly opened the Pandora's box for atheism and communism. You think Darwin has a high contribution. I think Darwin 過大於功. Similar to some people about "毛澤東".
7. "何況，這個問題後來 ** 已經有很多學者** 答了你。" This is a common logical fallacy. You used "很多學者" to shut out my personal opinion. If you may, please list me the name(s) of scientist(s) who may really demonstrate how our brain works, and/or how our brains may be developed from 1 egg + 1 sperm. I don't think any top-notch DNA scientist nowadays may answer these questions yet. Yet Darwin has the excuse in failing "to question what/who made..."?
8. If you have no interest in uncovering certain things, it doesn't imply that my statement was a "廢問", when you didn't even present any valid statements and/or arguments in listing flaws (if any) in my original statement. BUT Darwin's theory DID implied that a living organism had ability to "adapt", which, to some non-scientists, is quite misleading.
For example, if one day polar bears extinct, it is not that the polar bears fail to "adapt" to the environment, but because they ALL died. That is it. And nothing more about whether the polar bears failed to adapt as they have no knowledge on how they may "adapt" to improve their chance of survival.
Therefore I didn't "廢問", but you actually did a "廢答"。
I would have given Darwin more marks if he had said that:
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
Darwin failed to question----------->因為佢明知當時他無法答到。當然同時期Mandel其實做緊佢既豌豆遺傳研究，但佢既研究其實冇乜人知，達爾文同樣唔知。所以在當時的科學界來說，at DNA level的東西是無法回答的。達爾文在書中是有討論過他對動植物產生變異機制的研究，但亦很老實承認他不知道具體的原因。
Darwin wasn't a "古代" scientist---------->這倒真的是「廢答」。 說達爾文「古代」，是相對於懂得DNA的我們。 說中國的天文學家「古代」是相對於有引力理論的牛頓時代。 咁都要拗究竟係咪「古代」，就真係多餘。
It is nonsense to argue who contributed most in discovery of such laws.---------->這種statement本身才是nonsense。Every scientist presents their contribution都有多少之分，如果貢獻無分大小，你們那些不爽的人為何只顧著攻擊達爾文，不去攻擊Stephen Jay Gould﹖不去攻擊Ernst Mayr﹖當這些學者都尊崇達爾文的「開山」貢獻時，說nonsense的人本身才是nonsense。
DNA is already a totally different concept--------->偏偏所有生物都有共同的DNA密碼，印證了達爾文「生物有共同祖先」的理念。DNA這種完全不同範疇的證據跟達爾文的舊理論吻合。
So "中國曆法" is a more surprising discovery?----------->演化論本身也不是discovery。跟「發現DNA」是兩回事。
I don't see the point of using "中國古人" and "中國曆法" in discussing Darwin.------------>你不了解這個類比是我的錯。
Darwin's discovery diminishing the role of religion in human life----------->哥白尼和伽里略的discovery一樣 diminishing the role of religion in human life。完。
which indirectly opened the Pandora's box for atheism and communism--------------->你們誤用(甚至濫用)達爾文的理論, 這是他的錯﹖ 套你這種邏輯，刀匠最應落地獄永不超生，因為有了刀，diminishing the role of reasoning in human life, and "directly" opened the Pandora's box for violence. LOL
You used "很多學者" to shut out my personal opinion------->這是你自己的fallacy，關我甚麼事﹖你的意見不對就自然有人反駁，難道你像特首般說錯話畀人批評就說那是言論自由﹖
If you may, please list me the name(s) of scientist(s) who may really demonstrate how our brain works, and/or how our brains may be developed from 1 egg + 1 sperm.----------->你示範了另一個fallacy，在窮舉問題和亂搬龍門。
大家應該看看你本來的問題﹕「what/who made the survived species bornt with their ability (at DNA level) to "adapt"」 這一點當然有很多科學家做了相關研究去回答啦，現在你又舉另一些問題去搬龍門。那麼你永遠都可以找到一些「科學界未解答到」的問題，然後就說他們是失敗的。
what/who made the survived species bornt with their ability (at DNA level) to "adapt" 這基本上是一個 evolutionary developmental biology的問題，你可以自己上維基看到相關研究資料 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
有本相當有趣的書叫《蝴蝶、斑馬與胚胎：探索演化發生學之美》(Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo)，有興趣可以去看看。 (拙書介﹕http://fongyun.xanga.com/2007/06/19/endless-forms-most-beautiful/)
如果要全面地了解演化論的形成和達爾文身後的發展，我始終推介 Carl Zimmer的《演化：一個觀念的勝利》http://www.books.com.tw/products/0010295095
If you have no interest in uncovering certain things---------->我看是那些認為達爾文diminishing the role of religion in human life的人會比較not interested to生物學界的發展吧﹖
Darwin's theory DID implied that a living organism had ability to "adapt"------------>達爾文沒這樣說過，他只是說「能夠適應環境的生物才會生存和繁殖，所以現存的生物都適應了現有的環境」。生物是可以 unable to adapt 的(實例大把，例如畸嬰，那是自然發生的，多謝上帝吧)，不過會死之嘛。
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
這句你倒不全錯。
錯的是達爾文並沒有說過strongest of the species that survives, most intelligent that survives，而是the most adapted survives = the fittest survives (注意這句其實「也」不是達爾文自己說的，是那個亂搞甚麼社會達爾文主義的史賓莎說的。不過達爾文原本說得很學術，所以社會大眾還是這樣說)。 話之你有幾strong有幾intelligent，如果你適應不到當時的環境，就會死。達爾文不會蠢到這樣也不知道。
你對的是「succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life」這部分。 因為達爾文比較強調「適應環境」這部分(另一個強調的是性選擇sexual selection，不贅)，現代有部分科學家會認為，很多時候生物絕種可能純粹是「運氣太差」的問題。例如住在墨西哥的恐龍，當年一粒大隕石掉下來就死光啦，不代表牠們一定不適應後來的環境呀。情況就像汽車失事撞上行人路，行人被撞死並非因為他不守規則或者走得慢一樣。 這一點可以用來提醒其他科學家，不要勉強去解釋某種生物絕種「必然」是因為牠們不適應環境。 但要留意的是，提出這種「survival of the luckiest」說法的科學家，並非要推翻達爾文的演化學說。(有很多人會有這種誤會，例如拿Stephen Jay Gould的話來攻擊達爾文，雖然Gould提出了新理論，並認為自己改良了達爾文的理論，但其實他本人非常推崇達爾文，看他的書就知道。)
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
這句你倒不全錯。
錯的是達爾文並沒有說過strongest of the species that survives, most intelligent that survives，而是the most adapted survives = the fittest survives (注意這句其實「也」不是達爾文自己說的，是那個亂搞甚麼社會達爾文主義的史賓莎說的。不過達爾文原本說得很學術，所以社會大眾還是這樣說)。 話之你有幾strong有幾intelligent，如果你適應不到當時的環境，就會死。達爾文不會蠢到這樣也不知道。
你對的是「succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life」這部分。 因為達爾文比較強調「適應環境」這部分(另一個強調的是性選擇sexual selection，不贅)，現代有部分科學家會認為，很多時候生物絕種可能純粹是「運氣太差」的問題。例如住在墨西哥的恐龍，當年一粒大隕石掉下來就死光啦，不代表牠們一定不適應後來的環境呀。情況就像汽車失事撞上行人路，行人被撞死並非因為他不守規則或者走得慢一樣。 這一點可以用來提醒其他科學家，不要勉強去解釋某種生物絕種「必然」是因為牠們不適應環境。 但要留意的是，提出這種「survival of the luckiest」說法的科學家，並非要推翻達爾文的演化學說。(有很多人會有這種誤會，例如拿Stephen Jay Gould的話來攻擊達爾文，雖然Gould提出了新理論，並認為自己改良了達爾文的理論，但其實他本人非常推崇達爾文，看他的書就知道。)
我只強調一點，其實你說「Darwin's theory DID implied that a living organism had ability to "adapt"」顯示你根本是不懂達爾文。你批評的「達爾文」只是某些人樹立的稻草人。 以為生物基因有「傾向」主動適應環境，其實不是達爾文的理論(那是拉馬克的)。 達爾文的想法是，生物每一代都有變異，當中可能有些較適應環境，有些則否(很簡單，畸胎就是例子，可以純天然產生的，感謝上帝吧)。較適應環境的生存和繁殖機會自然較多，於是很多代累積下來(達爾文稱為天擇natural selection)之後，這種生物的特徵就會有所轉變。
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
這句你倒不全錯。
錯的是達爾文並沒有說過strongest of the species that survives, most intelligent that survives，而是the most adapted survives = the fittest survives (注意這句其實「也」不是達爾文自己說的，是那個亂搞甚麼社會達爾文主義的史賓莎說的。不過達爾文原本說得很學術，所以社會大眾還是這樣說)。 話之你有幾strong有幾intelligent，如果你適應不到當時的環境，就會死。達爾文不會蠢到這樣也不知道。
你對的是「succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life」這部分。 因為達爾文比較強調「適應環境」這部分(另一個強調的是性選擇sexual selection，不贅)，現代有部分科學家會認為，很多時候生物絕種可能純粹是「運氣太差」的問題。例如住在墨西哥的恐龍，當年一粒大隕石掉下來就死光啦，不代表牠們一定不適應後來的環境呀。情況就像汽車失事撞上行人路，行人被撞死並非因為他不守規則或者走得慢一樣。 這一點可以用來提醒其他科學家，不要勉強去解釋某種生物絕種「必然」是因為牠們不適應環境。 但要留意的是，提出這種「survival of the luckiest」說法的科學家，並非要推翻達爾文的演化學說。(有很多人會有這種誤會，例如拿Stephen Jay Gould的話來攻擊達爾文，雖然Gould提出了新理論，並認為自己改良了達爾文的理論，但其實他本人非常推崇達爾文，看他的書就知道。)
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
vs
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
How organism may learns to adapt? What is the term "fittest" mean? Practically Darwin created a moving target at his time, creating unnecessary arguments and discussions.
Even with DNA theory, organisms still have no way to "adapt", and they still don't know nor care if they would be the "fittest" to survive. (Their ability to adapt or change color, etc, were already hardcoded in their DNA which they couldn't manipulate themselves. Then what and/or who made those DNA at the beginning? i.e. Darwin's observation is already passe after the discovery of DNA.)
Just to create a similar argument: when a family all died in a car accident, according to Darwin's observation, they couldn't adapt (or they weren't the fittest) and thus they couldn't survive. That is 語言偽術, as it doesn't explain what really happened to that family.
If you cannot see the 語言偽術 from Darwin, then there is no point to "talk" about it.
With the discovery of DNA, Darwin practically said nothing about what had happened in ancient time leading to us. So we have been the "fittest", and now what ??!!!!
This already implied that the polar bears themselves has the ability (now we know that it has to be in their DNA) to "adapt" if given long enough time for them to "adapt". But you have no proof about this. Even if polar bears extinct, there is still no proof that there is NO hardcoded ability in their DNA for them to survive (or adapt to) global warming. Thus either way, there is NO proof to prove anything. Therefore the terms "adapt" and "fittest" are misleading, when we only know one fact... it is that all polar bears died.
By the way, mimicking Darwin's way of saying things, 野生黃花魚 extincted by Natural Selection (instead of over-fishing) as the 野生黃花魚 failed to reproduce quickly enough for human to consume; while 野生泥艋 is a fitter fish comparing to 野生黃花魚....
DNA當然not care它們是否adapt to environment，因為它們沒有知覺。變異和突變本身是盲目無方向的(並沒有所謂「為了」適應而變)，只是大自然把適應環境的變異保留而已(此之謂天擇natural selection)。
另一個常見的質疑就是說 survival of the fittest 是同義重複。這句話的確是同義重複，但這個不是科學的問題而是科普的問題。因為這句話只是用來簡介給不懂科學的人聽，而且甚至不是達爾文自創的。科學上如何談適應和天擇可看維基百科 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection 和 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
I thought "sans serif" is a modern font, so the above photograph of Darwin's grave really surprises me. After reading the relevant Wikipedia article, now I know that the typeface had already been adopted by typefounders as soon as 1786. So, it was probably a popular font in Darwin's times.
Likewise: "無論如何，毛澤東 肯定是新中華文化的巨匠，他的著述和一生行為，影響無與倫比。" [ Do you agree with and/or accept such view? Can I not accept such view? ]
My point is, you think Darwin 是自然科學的巨匠, but I think Darwin failed to complete his research prior to announcing his observation packaged with 語言偽術.
Thus we both have expressed our opinions, and there is no point to further argue, particularly when one party (such as Mr. 方潤) failed to understand the motive and viewpoint of the other party (such as myself).
Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
回覆刪除And Darwin failed to question what/who made the survived species bornt with their ability (at DNA level) to "adapt".
> And Darwin failed to question what/who made the survived species bornt with their ability (at DNA level) to "adapt".
刪除要求達爾文那個年代的人答到DNA水平的問題，等於要求中國古代的天文學家懂得萬有引力。
不懂DNA不能抹殺達爾文的貢獻、更不能推翻其理論。正如中國古人不懂萬有引力，但他們的曆法仍是當時世界的先進。
何況，這個問題後來已經有很多學者答了你。所以這是廢問。
樓上網友的主要批評是：達爾文只是提出「演化」，卻忽略了演化的力量，都是來自「神」吧。
刪除1. I didn't "要求達爾文那個年代的人答到DNA水平的問題". I only said "Darwin failed to question ** what/who ** made..." which doesn't require a knowledge of DNA.
刪除2. "要求中國古代的天文學家懂得萬有引力"... Darwin wasn't a "古代" scientist. But comparing to our time, Darwin was a "古代" scientist, and Isaac Newton who discovered 萬有引力 was also a "古代" scientist. Thus "古代" is relative term. Therefore your statement has no meaning.
3. "不懂DNA不能抹殺達爾文的貢獻". Likewise no one should "抹殺" those who performed "incest" so that a blood line may be carried on ? Science is just a discovery of laws in our universe. If Darwin couldn't uncover the magic of life, some other scientist would. Every scientist presents their contribution. It is nonsense to argue who contributed most in discovery of such laws. Thus your statement said nothing.
4. "更不能推翻其理論". Obviously, DNA is already a totally different concept. Darwin only brought people to pay attention to the blood-line phenomenon which leaded to the discovery of DNA. Nothing more.\
5. "正如中國古人不懂萬有引力，但他們的曆法仍是當時世界的先進。" So "中國曆法" is a more surprising discovery? or Darwin's evolution is? or the Discovery of DNA is? I don't see the point of using "中國古人" and "中國曆法" in discussing Darwin.
6. Darwin's discovery diminishing the role of religion in human life, which indirectly opened the Pandora's box for atheism and communism. You think Darwin has a high contribution. I think Darwin 過大於功. Similar to some people about "毛澤東".
7. "何況，這個問題後來 ** 已經有很多學者** 答了你。" This is a common logical fallacy. You used "很多學者" to shut out my personal opinion. If you may, please list me the name(s) of scientist(s) who may really demonstrate how our brain works, and/or how our brains may be developed from 1 egg + 1 sperm. I don't think any top-notch DNA scientist nowadays may answer these questions yet. Yet Darwin has the excuse in failing "to question what/who made..."?
8. If you have no interest in uncovering certain things, it doesn't imply that my statement was a "廢問", when you didn't even present any valid statements and/or arguments in listing flaws (if any) in my original statement. BUT Darwin's theory DID implied that a living organism had ability to "adapt", which, to some non-scientists, is quite misleading.
For example, if one day polar bears extinct, it is not that the polar bears fail to "adapt" to the environment, but because they ALL died. That is it. And nothing more about whether the polar bears failed to adapt as they have no knowledge on how they may "adapt" to improve their chance of survival.
Therefore I didn't "廢問", but you actually did a "廢答"。
"都是來自「神」吧。"
刪除I had no such implication. Particularly when no definition of 「神」may be precisely defined.
I would have given Darwin more marks if he had said that:
刪除"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
多謝，係我睇錯。不過我要說的亦不會差太遠。
刪除Darwin failed to question----------->因為佢明知當時他無法答到。當然同時期Mandel其實做緊佢既豌豆遺傳研究，但佢既研究其實冇乜人知，達爾文同樣唔知。所以在當時的科學界來說，at DNA level的東西是無法回答的。達爾文在書中是有討論過他對動植物產生變異機制的研究，但亦很老實承認他不知道具體的原因。
Darwin wasn't a "古代" scientist---------->這倒真的是「廢答」。
說達爾文「古代」，是相對於懂得DNA的我們。
說中國的天文學家「古代」是相對於有引力理論的牛頓時代。
咁都要拗究竟係咪「古代」，就真係多餘。
It is nonsense to argue who contributed most in discovery of such laws.---------->這種statement本身才是nonsense。Every scientist presents their contribution都有多少之分，如果貢獻無分大小，你們那些不爽的人為何只顧著攻擊達爾文，不去攻擊Stephen Jay Gould﹖不去攻擊Ernst Mayr﹖當這些學者都尊崇達爾文的「開山」貢獻時，說nonsense的人本身才是nonsense。
DNA is already a totally different concept--------->偏偏所有生物都有共同的DNA密碼，印證了達爾文「生物有共同祖先」的理念。DNA這種完全不同範疇的證據跟達爾文的舊理論吻合。
So "中國曆法" is a more surprising discovery?----------->演化論本身也不是discovery。跟「發現DNA」是兩回事。
I don't see the point of using "中國古人" and "中國曆法" in discussing Darwin.------------>你不了解這個類比是我的錯。
Darwin's discovery diminishing the role of religion in human life----------->哥白尼和伽里略的discovery一樣 diminishing the role of religion in human life。完。
which indirectly opened the Pandora's box for atheism and communism--------------->你們誤用(甚至濫用)達爾文的理論, 這是他的錯﹖
套你這種邏輯，刀匠最應落地獄永不超生，因為有了刀，diminishing the role of reasoning in human life, and "directly" opened the Pandora's box for violence. LOL
You used "很多學者" to shut out my personal opinion------->這是你自己的fallacy，關我甚麼事﹖你的意見不對就自然有人反駁，難道你像特首般說錯話畀人批評就說那是言論自由﹖
If you may, please list me the name(s) of scientist(s) who may really demonstrate how our brain works, and/or how our brains may be developed from 1 egg + 1 sperm.----------->你示範了另一個fallacy，在窮舉問題和亂搬龍門。
大家應該看看你本來的問題﹕「what/who made the survived species bornt with their ability (at DNA level) to "adapt"」
這一點當然有很多科學家做了相關研究去回答啦，現在你又舉另一些問題去搬龍門。那麼你永遠都可以找到一些「科學界未解答到」的問題，然後就說他們是失敗的。
what/who made the survived species bornt with their ability (at DNA level) to "adapt"
這基本上是一個 evolutionary developmental biology的問題，你可以自己上維基看到相關研究資料
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
有本相當有趣的書叫《蝴蝶、斑馬與胚胎：探索演化發生學之美》(Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo)，有興趣可以去看看。
(拙書介﹕http://fongyun.xanga.com/2007/06/19/endless-forms-most-beautiful/)
如果這本也嫌太厚的話，還有本短的《退化原來是進化》，日本人寫的。
(拙書介﹕http://fongyun.xanga.com/2011/11/18/vestigiality-is-a-part-of-evolution-story/)
如果要全面地了解演化論的形成和達爾文身後的發展，我始終推介 Carl Zimmer的《演化：一個觀念的勝利》http://www.books.com.tw/products/0010295095
If you have no interest in uncovering certain things---------->我看是那些認為達爾文diminishing the role of religion in human life的人會比較not interested to生物學界的發展吧﹖
Darwin's theory DID implied that a living organism had ability to "adapt"------------>達爾文沒這樣說過，他只是說「能夠適應環境的生物才會生存和繁殖，所以現存的生物都適應了現有的環境」。生物是可以 unable to adapt 的(實例大把，例如畸嬰，那是自然發生的，多謝上帝吧)，不過會死之嘛。
以為生物基因上有主動去adapt environment，那是錯誤理解。如果你用錯誤的理解去批評達爾文，那是你有問題，不是他。
你那個北極熊的例子正好顯示了你這個理解錯誤。because they ALL died是廢話來的，科學家問的問題是why they all died? 當然你可以舉一大堆生理上的問題，例如冰融了牠找不到獵物，甚至天氣太熱牠毛厚。這些就是所謂「不適應」環境。
如果按照你們對演化的錯誤理解，達爾文似乎是主張這些北極熊可以主動去「適應」環境，例如「唔知點解」增強覓食能力、或者「唔知點解」甩晒D毛適應熱氣候。你的問題等於說因為達爾文解釋不到這些「唔知點解」，所以佢錯。
但唔好意思，達爾文根本唔係咁講。佢講既係生物每一代會有變異(這一點達爾文本人解釋不到「為何有變異」，但後世科學家已經從基因層面解釋到)，這些變異當中可能有些會比較適應環境(有些則否)，於是比較適應環境的生存和繁殖能力較強，經過很多代之後，生物特徵就會有所轉變。
套落北極熊的例子，就是如果下一代有一隻能夠在無冰環境順利覓食的話，牠就會生較多的後代。於是很多代之後，北極熊可能就不需要再依賴冰層覓食了。(毛也是一樣，在熱環境可能漸漸變成薄毛甚至無毛)
北極熊假如真的絕種，是因為這個環境轉變(全球暖化)實在太快，快到牠們的演化步伐無法跟得上，就已經因為不適應新環境而死光了。如果你明白這一點，就沒甚麼好質疑的。
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
刪除這句你倒不全錯。
錯的是達爾文並沒有說過strongest of the species that survives, most intelligent that survives，而是the most adapted survives = the fittest survives (注意這句其實「也」不是達爾文自己說的，是那個亂搞甚麼社會達爾文主義的史賓莎說的。不過達爾文原本說得很學術，所以社會大眾還是這樣說)。
話之你有幾strong有幾intelligent，如果你適應不到當時的環境，就會死。達爾文不會蠢到這樣也不知道。
你對的是「succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life」這部分。
因為達爾文比較強調「適應環境」這部分(另一個強調的是性選擇sexual selection，不贅)，現代有部分科學家會認為，很多時候生物絕種可能純粹是「運氣太差」的問題。例如住在墨西哥的恐龍，當年一粒大隕石掉下來就死光啦，不代表牠們一定不適應後來的環境呀。情況就像汽車失事撞上行人路，行人被撞死並非因為他不守規則或者走得慢一樣。
這一點可以用來提醒其他科學家，不要勉強去解釋某種生物絕種「必然」是因為牠們不適應環境。
但要留意的是，提出這種「survival of the luckiest」說法的科學家，並非要推翻達爾文的演化學說。(有很多人會有這種誤會，例如拿Stephen Jay Gould的話來攻擊達爾文，雖然Gould提出了新理論，並認為自己改良了達爾文的理論，但其實他本人非常推崇達爾文，看他的書就知道。)
上一篇回應好像消失了，Chris見到嗎﹖可否幫我搬番出黎﹖太長懶得再打過。
刪除(最近blogspot好像總是這樣，剛剛貼了一大堆回應後，再貼一段回應就會令舊一篇不見了……)
(死，兩篇都唔見左添。我淨係救到一篇﹕)
刪除"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
這句你倒不全錯。
錯的是達爾文並沒有說過strongest of the species that survives, most intelligent that survives，而是the most adapted survives = the fittest survives (注意這句其實「也」不是達爾文自己說的，是那個亂搞甚麼社會達爾文主義的史賓莎說的。不過達爾文原本說得很學術，所以社會大眾還是這樣說)。
話之你有幾strong有幾intelligent，如果你適應不到當時的環境，就會死。達爾文不會蠢到這樣也不知道。
你對的是「succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life」這部分。
因為達爾文比較強調「適應環境」這部分(另一個強調的是性選擇sexual selection，不贅)，現代有部分科學家會認為，很多時候生物絕種可能純粹是「運氣太差」的問題。例如住在墨西哥的恐龍，當年一粒大隕石掉下來就死光啦，不代表牠們一定不適應後來的環境呀。情況就像汽車失事撞上行人路，行人被撞死並非因為他不守規則或者走得慢一樣。
這一點可以用來提醒其他科學家，不要勉強去解釋某種生物絕種「必然」是因為牠們不適應環境。
但要留意的是，提出這種「survival of the luckiest」說法的科學家，並非要推翻達爾文的演化學說。(有很多人會有這種誤會，例如拿Stephen Jay Gould的話來攻擊達爾文，雖然Gould提出了新理論，並認為自己改良了達爾文的理論，但其實他本人非常推崇達爾文，看他的書就知道。)
看看Chris救不救到我上一篇回應吧。
刪除我只強調一點，其實你說「Darwin's theory DID implied that a living organism had ability to "adapt"」顯示你根本是不懂達爾文。你批評的「達爾文」只是某些人樹立的稻草人。
以為生物基因有「傾向」主動適應環境，其實不是達爾文的理論(那是拉馬克的)。
達爾文的想法是，生物每一代都有變異，當中可能有些較適應環境，有些則否(很簡單，畸胎就是例子，可以純天然產生的，感謝上帝吧)。較適應環境的生存和繁殖機會自然較多，於是很多代累積下來(達爾文稱為天擇natural selection)之後，這種生物的特徵就會有所轉變。
其餘的回應看Chris救不救到舊留言吧。
(死，兩篇都唔見左添，原來要每次log out再login才可以順利貼出，非常戇居。我淨係救到一篇﹕)
刪除"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
這句你倒不全錯。
錯的是達爾文並沒有說過strongest of the species that survives, most intelligent that survives，而是the most adapted survives = the fittest survives (注意這句其實「也」不是達爾文自己說的，是那個亂搞甚麼社會達爾文主義的史賓莎說的。不過達爾文原本說得很學術，所以社會大眾還是這樣說)。
話之你有幾strong有幾intelligent，如果你適應不到當時的環境，就會死。達爾文不會蠢到這樣也不知道。
你對的是「succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life」這部分。
因為達爾文比較強調「適應環境」這部分(另一個強調的是性選擇sexual selection，不贅)，現代有部分科學家會認為，很多時候生物絕種可能純粹是「運氣太差」的問題。例如住在墨西哥的恐龍，當年一粒大隕石掉下來就死光啦，不代表牠們一定不適應後來的環境呀。情況就像汽車失事撞上行人路，行人被撞死並非因為他不守規則或者走得慢一樣。
這一點可以用來提醒其他科學家，不要勉強去解釋某種生物絕種「必然」是因為牠們不適應環境。
但要留意的是，提出這種「survival of the luckiest」說法的科學家，並非要推翻達爾文的演化學說。(有很多人會有這種誤會，例如拿Stephen Jay Gould的話來攻擊達爾文，雖然Gould提出了新理論，並認為自己改良了達爾文的理論，但其實他本人非常推崇達爾文，看他的書就知道。)
通通救回，安樂晒。
刪除你救嚟做乜 ? 一句話引出一個垃圾堆。 Darwin was using 語言偽術 :
刪除"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
vs
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one who succeeded in staying alive at the critical point of their life."
How organism may learns to adapt? What is the term "fittest" mean? Practically Darwin created a moving target at his time, creating unnecessary arguments and discussions.
刪除Even with DNA theory, organisms still have no way to "adapt", and they still don't know nor care if they would be the "fittest" to survive. (Their ability to adapt or change color, etc, were already hardcoded in their DNA which they couldn't manipulate themselves. Then what and/or who made those DNA at the beginning? i.e. Darwin's observation is already passe after the discovery of DNA.)
Just to create a similar argument: when a family all died in a car accident, according to Darwin's observation, they couldn't adapt (or they weren't the fittest) and thus they couldn't survive. That is 語言偽術, as it doesn't explain what really happened to that family.
If you cannot see the 語言偽術 from Darwin, then there is no point to "talk" about it.
With the discovery of DNA, Darwin practically said nothing about what had happened in ancient time leading to us. So we have been the "fittest", and now what ??!!!!
Your example.... "套落北極熊的例子，就是如果下一代有一隻能夠在無冰環境順利覓食的話，牠就會生較多的後代。於是很多代之後，北極熊可能就不需要再依賴冰層覓食了。(毛也是一樣，在熱環境可能漸漸變成薄毛甚至無毛)
刪除北極熊假如真的絕種，是因為這個環境轉變(全球暖化)實在太快，快到牠們的演化步伐無法跟得上，就已經因為不適應新環境而死光了。如果你明白這一點，就沒甚麼好質疑的。"
This already implied that the polar bears themselves has the ability (now we know that it has to be in their DNA) to "adapt" if given long enough time for them to "adapt". But you have no proof about this. Even if polar bears extinct, there is still no proof that there is NO hardcoded ability in their DNA for them to survive (or adapt to) global warming. Thus either way, there is NO proof to prove anything. Therefore the terms "adapt" and "fittest" are misleading, when we only know one fact... it is that all polar bears died.
By the way, mimicking Darwin's way of saying things, 野生黃花魚 extincted by Natural Selection (instead of over-fishing) as the 野生黃花魚 failed to reproduce quickly enough for human to consume; while 野生泥艋 is a fitter fish comparing to 野生黃花魚....
刪除> How organism may learns to adapt?
刪除你還講這一句，其實即是說不用再談下去。因為你一直拿著拉馬克的理論當成達爾文的去打，而且當我指出了之後你還要繼續，那即是談下去也沒意義。如果有看倌不知拉馬克和達爾文有何分別，自己上網找維基百科。
DNA當然not care它們是否adapt to environment，因為它們沒有知覺。變異和突變本身是盲目無方向的(並沒有所謂「為了」適應而變)，只是大自然把適應環境的變異保留而已(此之謂天擇natural selection)。
另一個常見的質疑就是說 survival of the fittest 是同義重複。這句話的確是同義重複，但這個不是科學的問題而是科普的問題。因為這句話只是用來簡介給不懂科學的人聽，而且甚至不是達爾文自創的。科學上如何談適應和天擇可看維基百科 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection 和 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
"大自然把適應環境的變異保留而已"... 呢句咪又係 "語言偽術" !!?? 大自然得閒理得你去死。
刪除你得閒去睇睇 Darwin 個雀仔嘴 實驗 / 觀察，搵吓有乜問題先啦。死衝動。 知少少... 又咁鬼得閒... 當正自己係 Darwin... 我唔係咁得閒㗎咋 !
不明白為何仍有這麼多人反對進化論！
回覆刪除抽下水先 , 因為承認了進化論 , 那些自古以來 , 你祖先係乜 , 你就係乜 , 一代代咁追上去的話 , 會發覺你的中國人祖先是一隻大猩猩 , 結論是中國人=大猩猩是不可接受的 , 所以咪咁多人反對囉
刪除不止大猩猩，更要推上海洋生物，乃至單細胞動物。
刪除I thought "sans serif" is a modern font, so the above photograph of Darwin's grave really surprises me. After reading the relevant Wikipedia article, now I know that the typeface had already been adopted by typefounders as soon as 1786. So, it was probably a popular font in Darwin's times.
回覆刪除這麼眼利！
刪除The discussions here are really interesting to me! Thanks everyone!
回覆刪除無論如何，Darwin 肯定是自然科學的巨匠，他的著述的影響無與倫比。
回覆刪除Likewise: "無論如何，毛澤東 肯定是新中華文化的巨匠，他的著述和一生行為，影響無與倫比。" [ Do you agree with and/or accept such view? Can I not accept such view? ]
刪除My point is, you think Darwin 是自然科學的巨匠, but I think Darwin failed to complete his research prior to announcing his observation packaged with 語言偽術.
Thus we both have expressed our opinions, and there is no point to further argue, particularly when one party (such as Mr. 方潤) failed to understand the motive and viewpoint of the other party (such as myself).
以你的定義，咁好多科學家、數學家都只不過係「failed to complete his research prior to announcing his observation packaged with 語言偽術.」 包括愛因斯坦。
刪除When we talk about Darwin, you begin to talk about Einstein, this is called "illogical".
刪除你得閒去睇睇 Darwin 個雀仔嘴 實驗 / 觀察，又搵到有乜問題，先講啦 !