Re: 几点疑问.Re: 我所知道的两个例子：科学和信仰的关系 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Thoughts - 思考者

Re: 几点疑问.Re: 我所知道的两个例子：科学和信仰的关系

Re: 几点疑问.Re: 我所知道的两个例子：科学和信仰的关系# Thoughts - 思考者

i*e2004-04-15 07:04

1 楼

发信人: icestone (多年的赌徒), 信区: Science
标题: Re: 几点疑问.Re: 我所知道的两个例子：科学和信仰的关系
发信站: Unknown Space - 未名空间 (Wed Apr 14 12:58:33 2004) WWW-POST
1: Irreduciable simplicity
2: Macro-evolution, Missing links.
3: Origin of Life
4: Chirality of Amino acid residues, Why Left-handed Aa are exclusively
presents in native protein. Why not right-handed.
1: I didn't find a paper to explain it yet.
2: Gould's punctuated equilibrium may explain some, but his initial experiment
was carried on E.Coli. Microevolution h

i*e2004-04-15 07:04

2 楼

发信人: erythromycin (花花分子，有机世界), 信区: Science
标题: Re: 几点疑问.Re: 我所知道的两个例子：科
发信站: Unknown Space - 未名空间 (Wed Apr 14 18:19:19 2004) WWW-POST
Kind of most aggressive post by religion believers. You're trying to use
scientific problems to attack science itself. I'm sorry to say that your
arguement still didn't make much sense. We never say sciences can explain
everything. On the contrary, we say there're still a lot of problems, and
scientists need to do more research work. Yes, scientists have no answ

【在 i******e 的大作中提到】

: 发信人: icestone (多年的赌徒), 信区: Science
: 标题: Re: 几点疑问.Re: 我所知道的两个例子：科学和信仰的关系
: 发信站: Unknown Space - 未名空间 (Wed Apr 14 12:58:33 2004) WWW-POST
: 1: Irreduciable simplicity
: 2: Macro-evolution, Missing links.
: 3: Origin of Life
: 4: Chirality of Amino acid residues, Why Left-handed Aa are exclusively
: presents in native protein. Why not right-handed.
: 1: I didn't find a paper to explain it yet.
: 2: Gould's punctuated equilibrium may explain some, but his initial experiment

p*r2004-04-15 07:04

3 楼

I think evolution in general is widely accepted and has a lot of evidence
supporting it, e.g. evolution of bacteria.
However, there is currently no direct evidence I know of which says that
evolution can lead to speciation on a big scale.
So macroevolution is more of a reasonable conjecture right now.
All the current evidence supporting macroevolution does not stand ultimately
to the attack of creationist biologists yet. (Don't discount them, some of
them are very very good at science.)
On the o

【在 i******e 的大作中提到】

: 发信人: erythromycin (花花分子，有机世界), 信区: Science
: 标题: Re: 几点疑问.Re: 我所知道的两个例子：科
: 发信站: Unknown Space - 未名空间 (Wed Apr 14 18:19:19 2004) WWW-POST
: Kind of most aggressive post by religion believers. You're trying to use
: scientific problems to attack science itself. I'm sorry to say that your
: arguement still didn't make much sense. We never say sciences can explain
: everything. On the contrary, we say there're still a lot of problems, and
: scientists need to do more research work. Yes, scientists have no answ

e*n2004-04-15 07:04

4 楼

Interesting. But I know even for some PhDs on biology, they still don't know
how to think scientifically. :)
benifit
I'm sorry that you didn't find a happier tongue in Fang's articles. He has
been keeping replying similar questions for very long time, so I think he's
already patient enough. Religion believers should find evidence to make their
arguement sounder, so it's unfair to blame Fang. He DID give serious answers
in his articles, maybe not the newest, ^_^ but religion believers just chose

【在 i******e 的大作中提到】