-
Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading
Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Historic -> smart factory Text Chapter 1,372 Knowledge Flaws
Previous page Return to Catalog Next page
- Chapter 1,372 Knowledge Flaws
Darwin¡¯s ideas may explain horse hooves, but can it explain the basis of biology?
¡°In a sense, the history of biology is composed of a series of black boxes; when one black box is opened, another black box is naturally revealed. ¡¾¡¿
Black box is a strange term. It refers to an item that has a certain function, but because its inner mechanism is not visible to people, or sometimes it is difficult to understand, it gives people a sense of mystery. A computer is the best example of a black box
"Most people don't have to know exactly how it works when using this amazing machine. You can process words, draw tables, or play games without having to think about what the console is doing internally.
¡°Imagine we transport a computer with a long-lasting battery back to King Arthur¡¯s yard more than 1,000 years ago. How would people of that era react when they saw this weird machine?
Maybe most people will feel intimidated, maybe someone is lucky enough to figure it out, and some people will find that letters appear on the screen as soon as they touch the keyboard.
Some strings of characters related to computer commands will change the content displayed on the screen. After a while, he will understand many commands. Those medieval Britons would have thought they had unlocked the secrets of computers.
At the same time, someone happened to open the casing to explore the working principle inside the machine. For a while, the discovery of the theory of "computer working principle" was considered extremely naive. The gradually revealed black box may reveal another black box
In ancient times, biology itself was a black box. Because no one can explain biological phenomena.
Ancient people stared blankly at plants or animals, trying to figure out the unfathomable technology, but they were really groping in the dark.
The earliest biological research could only adopt the most primitive methods. That is, observe with the naked eye. Around 400 BC, in the era of Hippocrates, who was revered as the "Father of Physicians" by Westerners, some books describing the symptoms of common diseases believed that illness was related to diet and other physiological causes, and was not caused by God.
Despite a good start, those ancient people were still at a loss when faced with the intrinsic mechanism of living things. They believed that everything was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water.
? And living things are considered to be composed of four "body fluids": blood, yellow bile, black bile and mucus. Westerners at the time also insisted that all disease was caused by an excess of one of the body fluids.
Aristotle, the greatest biologist and greatest philosopher in ancient Greece, was born during the lifetime of Hippocrates. Unlike all its predecessors. He realized that understanding nature requires systematic observation and study.
Through careful research, he realized that there is an amazing order in the biological world, which made biological research an important first step forward.
Aristotle classified animals into two categories, those with blood and those with blood. This is basically consistent with the modern classification of vertebrates and invertebrates.
Among the vertebrates he discovered mammals, birds and fish. He placed amphibians and reptiles in a separate category, and snakes in a separate category.
His observations were not aided by instruments, but many of Aristotle's reasoning and understandings were correct and reasonable, although people did not obtain these understandings until thousands of years after his death.
In the nearly thousand years after Aristotle. Only a few important biologists emerged. One of them was Galen, a Roman physician in the 2nd century AD.
Galen¡¯s research showed that to understand biological phenomena, it is not enough to study the inside and outside of plants. For example, Galen was trying to understand the functions of animal organs. Although he knew that the heart was the organ that pumped out blood, he could not know that blood circulation ultimately returned to the heart just by observing it.
Galen mistakenly believed that the blood output from the heart was used to "irrigate" other tissues and organs. At the same time, blood is continuously produced in the body to supply the heart. His understanding has been used as teaching content for nearly 1,500 years.
1500 years, what a concept of time. A wrong kind of knowledge has been enshrined on the altar of science for 15 centuries!
It was not until the 17th century that an Englishman named William Harry proposed the theory that blood continuously flows in one direction, circulates for a week, and then flows back to the heart.
Harry calculated that if the heart can output two ounces of blood every time it beats, and based on the heart beating 72 times per minute, then the heart can output 540 pounds of blood in one hour, which is three times the body weight!
Since it is obviously impossible to produce so much blood in such a short period of time, the blood must have been used repeatedly.
Harry uses this kind of logical reasoning with the help of RongThe easy-to-calculate Arabic numerals to prove an unobservable activity can be said to be unprecedented, and it laid another foundation for modern biological theory.
The first breakthrough was the invention of the microscope. Galileo used this microscope to surprisingly discover the compound eyes of insects. Steiler used it to look at the eyes, tongues, antennae and other parts of bees and weevils.
Malpiffi demonstrated that blood circulates through capillaries and described the early embryonic development of the chick heart. Nesviaglu used it to observe plants, and Swimedem used it to dissect mayflies.
Leven Luke was the first to use it to observe cells; Robert Hooke observed and described corks and leaves although he overlooked their importance.
Since then, an unpredictable study of the microscopic world has begun. In an attempt to overturn the conclusion about biology, the scientist and historian Charles Singer wrote: "The complexity of the limits of biology thus revealed is as complex as the orderly and magnificent astronomical world that Galileo revealed to us a generation ago. Philosophically they were both agitational, although it took a long time for the latter to sink in."
In other words, sometimes the emergence of black boxes requires humans to revise all theories. In this case, great reluctance is inevitable.
In the early 19th century, the biological cell theory was finally proposed by Marshall Schlayton and Theodore Schwan.
Schlayton initially worked on plant tissues. The central argument he made concerned the existence of the important black spot within the cell, the nucleus.
Schwan, on the other hand, focuses on the research of animal tissues, although it is difficult to observe cells. But he felt that the cell structure of animals was similar to that of plants, and in a sense, cells were living organisms.
He wrote: "The answer to the driving force of the organism lies in every cell." Schlayton also asked this question, "The most basic question, then, is, what is the source of this little organism, is it a cell? ?¡±
Schleiton and Schwan's research work was in the early to mid-19th century. This was the period when Darwin traveled and wrote "The Origin of Species". For Darwin and other scientists at that time, cells were just black boxes, but he was able to explain biological phenomena outside cells very well.
The idea of ??biological evolution was not originated by Darwin. But he gave the most systematic description and explanation of the evolutionary principle of relevant organisms, that is, the natural selection of biological variation, which was his original creation.
At the same time, research on cellular black boxes has been steadily progressing. Cell studies push microscopes to their limits because of the wavelength of light.
? From a physical point of view. The wavelength of visible light is only about 1/10 of the diameter of biological cells. Therefore, many tiny and important details of cell tissue cannot be seen with a light microscope. Without further development of science and technology, the black box of cells cannot be opened.
At the end of the 19th century, with the rapid progress of physical research, J.J. Thomson discovered electricity, and a few decades later, people invented the electron microscope. Since the wavelength of electrons is shorter than the wavelength of visible light, no matter how small a substance is "illuminated" by electric light, it can be seen.
There are also many practical difficulties in using electron microscopes, not least the possibility that the electron beam will destroy the specimen. But people eventually found a way around this problem. The electron microscope was officially born after World War II.
The underlying cellular tissue was discovered: gaps in the nucleus and mitochondria were seen, the double-layered membranes known as the power plants of the cell. The same simple cell seen under a light microscope now appears very different under an electron microscope.
The wonder that 20th-century scientists felt when they saw the complex structure of cells was the same as the wonder that early light microscopy scientists felt when they saw the minute structures of insects.
Science is a kind of adventure and progress. To explore areas that have never been known to anyone, even many times. Discovery overthrows old knowledge structures and content.
But not everyone can accept this kind of knowledge. In many cases, most human beings are just stubborn and stubborn. They only want to believe in the known "common sense" and are unwilling to accept the real truth. Knowledge.
In the 20th century, the level of scientific development at this time was enough for biologists to start marching towards the most difficult black box to open. Questions like "how life moves" were far beyond the ability of Darwin and the people of his time to answer.
For Darwin, vision was a black box, but through the continuous efforts of many biochemists, we humans can now almost clearly answer questions about vision.
It is not enough to explain the anatomy of the entire eye from the perspective of evolution just like Darwin and those who advocate the theory of evolution today. Every anatomy thought so simple by DarwinSteps and marriage actually involve extremely complex biochemical processes that are difficult to express in words.
Here, biochemistry poses a small challenge to Darwin's theory. It is clear that anatomy can answer questions about whether molecules evolve.
The same is true for fossil records. It doesn¡¯t really matter whether there are gaps in the records. If there really are gaps, it is critical whether the recorded fossils are clear.
Because the fossil record cannot tell us whether the interaction between this side of the retina and rhodopsin, conductin and phospholipase developed step by step.
Regardless of the research methods of biogeography or population biology, or the traditional explanation of some basic organs or species by the theory of evolution.
But that doesn¡¯t mean that accidental change is a myth or that Darwin can¡¯t explain anything. In fact, his theory of microevolution explains it quite well. It doesn¡¯t mean that phenomena like population genetics are also important.
In fact, they are indeed worthy of study. Now the black box of the cell has been opened, however. In this limited world, there are still many phenomena to be explained.
¡°At least it must be clear that science is not omnipotent. It is subject to the limitations of observational means and the limitations of theory. However, all things in the world are limited. It is very reluctant to explain the limit with the limited.
And if you are not even willing to face up to this limitation and try to use current science to explain everything in the world, that is not only arrogant, but also stupid and self-righteous.
But in this generation that is about to enter the 21st century. But they are complete believers in scientism. Most people believe that science is great and impossible, just as religious people describe the gods they believe in. Omniscient and omnipotent.
Since entering the industrial age, the cultural level of mankind has greatly improved, but this is only the overall level, and other reference objects are the previously illiterate agricultural population.
So let¡¯s really talk about it. Modern humans have only improved their literacy rate. The understanding of science and the thinking mode are almost the same as those of ancient farmers.
For example, the theory of evolution mentions knowledge about biological evolution and development. Generation after generation, most people have been educated by this theory. We have all learned that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, and reptiles evolved into birds. Birds turned into mammals.
¡°Obviously, it¡¯s much easier to explain these processes to school-age children than to demonstrate them.
You can say that. The theory of evolution is the only theory that has been widely disseminated in education around the world without being rigorously proven by science.
Despite this, evolutionists still claim that evolution is not just a theory but a scientific fact. The problem is that there is no choice between God creating all things and evolving all things.
The key to solving this problem is: has the theory of evolution ever been proven by scientific evidence?
Darwin knew that the only way to prove evolution was to look for fossil evidence. This effort began in his time and continues to this day. How many paleontologists, geologists, excavators, construction workers, drilling rigs, oil rigs, archaeologists, anthropologists, students and amateur fossil enthusiasts are digging holes in the ground to search for it.
This is simply proof for the sake of proof!
But science is rigorous. This hypothesis has not been rigorously proven after all, but this does not seem to prevent most people from treating it as a holy book in the name of science.
But the problem is that most people don¡¯t actually care about science. They care about food, clothing, housing, transportation, and their own desires. Of course, seeking knowledge is usually not among them. Even curiosity is mostly reflected in the nature of Bagua.
Who cares what science is? As long as authoritative experts say yes, then it must be so. This is what most people think. They are willing to be brainwashed and controlled, like sheep, who only want food, clothing and comfort.
When it comes to Darwin¡¯s theory of evolution, what fossils can prove the existence of transitional populations?
Stephen Jay Gould, a biologist at Harvard University, is a strong advocate of evolution, but he recently pointed out that all paleontologists know that the fossil evidence of transitional forms is minimal, and the differences between major groups Transitional forms are sorely lacking.
Gould did not say that there are very few fossils. He only said that there are very few fossils that can be used to prove Darwin's theory. In fact, there are many fossils from ancient and modern groups.
For example, archaeologists have discovered early extinct primate fossils, hominid fossils, Homo fossils, and Homo sapiens fossils, but they have not found any fossils that can connect apes and humans
duyidu.
Read it
We discovered an embarrassing situation similar to Darwin¡¯s phenomenon of flowering plants, a blind spot in the theory of evolution.
There are millions of fossils stored in many geological libraries. Why have humans found representatives of non-flowering plants 300 million years ago, and found representatives of flowering plants 100 million years ago that are still alive today, but cannot find representatives of plants that are still alive today? A representative of an intermediate species between two species?
¡°These intermediate species are ironclad evidence that supports the theory of evolution. You must know that there are no such intermediate plants in the world today, and there are no traces of them in fossils. This is the death of Darwin¡¯s theory of evolution.
Stephen Jay Gould, a biologist at Harvard University, also discussed anti-human ethics experiments. According to information obtained by the Intelligence Department of the Ancient Literature Society, many laboratories in the UK have been secretly conducting experiments on human-animal hybrid embryos in the past few years, and have produced more than 150 hybrid embryos containing both human and animal genes.
Although these experiments were purportedly aimed at finding effective treatments for a variety of diseases through research on embryonic stem cells, the news still aroused widespread concern after being exposed.
Scientists who ¡°experiment for the sake of experimenting¡± have also been questioned because of ethical issues.
But in fact, crossing the bottom line of ethics and morality is quite tempting for many medical scientists: beyond it, some of the most difficult scientific mysteries may even be easily solved.
For example, how did apes evolve into humans? The root cause of mental illness?
The American "Wired" magazine listed various "unethical" experiments that scientists most want to do. If these "dehumanizing" experiments can really abandon the constraints of ethics and morals and succeed, then modern science will be able to complete an epic leap
There are no such intermediate plants in the world today, and no trace of them can be found in fossils. This is a serious and critical issue that needs to be analyzed in depth and thoroughly
Richard Milton, a science journalist, wrote a perceptive review: "The absence of fossils of intermediate species prompted me for the first time to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution. From there I began to consider something I had never thought of before: Darwin Are there scientific flaws in the theory of evolution?" To be continued. ) - Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report
- Previous pageCatalogNext page