| 1 [2] > |
但當讀到由爬蟲類演化成鳥類時, 便產生了疑問. 生物是因為為了適應大自然環境而作出適當的變化. 如人類身活在大熱天日曬高的地方,當地的居民皮膚會較黑, 好減少紫外線的傷害. 嘴唇較厚及頭髮短曲,較能散熱. 住在冰冷地方的人身體較能耐寒. 動物也可能會是一樣, 在水上生活的生物,慢慢適應並居住在陸地,我還能接受. 只是不能接受為何陸上生物如何適應天上的生活而演化成會飛的生物? 不是應該是先為了適應環境身體才作出變化的嗎? | |
No, please see link below for what evolution IS http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02 | |
In particular, here it answer your misconception about evolution. I post it here for your easy reference http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IDtrying.shtml Misconception: “Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt.” Response: Natural selection leads to adaptation, but the process doesn’t involve “trying.” Natural selection involves genetic variation and selection among variants present in a population. Either an individual has genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not—but it can’t get the right genes by “trying.” AND http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IEneeds.shtml Misconception: “Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need.’ ” Response: Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species “needs.” If a population happens to have the genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a particular challenge better than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may still survive (but not evolve much) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it “needs” by natural selection. | |
有關鳥類進化，見: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html | |
「生物是因為為了適應大自然環境而作出適當的變化. 如人類身活在大熱天日曬高的地方,當地的居民皮膚會較黑, 好減少紫外線的傷害. 嘴唇較厚及頭髮短曲,較能散熱. 住在冰冷地方的人身體較能耐寒. 動物也可能會是一樣, 在水上生活的生物,慢慢適應並居住在陸地,」 你明白不，以上正正是進化論所反對的其中一種理論…… 正論是 先有部份人較耐寒(隨機突變），而後天氣冷了把不耐寒的冷死(至少冷至生育力下降）……或 那群人擴闊了生活空間，活到冰冷地方去 (以上其中二種情况） 重點是先有隨機突變 | |
| |
人有白人, 黃種人, 黑人, 紅人, 為甚麼令人類演化成不同膚色? 不見得黑人, 黃色膚色的人不適合住在歐洲, 也不見得白人不能在亞洲, 非洲生存, 或說非洲人的黑皮膚有助抵陽光 (勉強說得通咋, 實際溫帶地區紫外線強度比低緯度的強. 白人死於皮膚癌比黃種人, 黑人高, 正明白皮膚不是優勢的演化來適應歐洲環境, 也不見得是白皮膚在溫, 寒帶有利, 所以其它膚色的人種死哂, 生殖力會減弱, 所以白人成優勢種。) 用演化論...如何解釋人類因何需要不同膚色的原因? 起因何在? 有些人演化成黃皮膚有咩好處? 若無好處, 演黎做乜? 不同膚色是大演化黎, 不是小分別, 應該有理由架喎. 唔該演俾我睇. | |
既然各種人都分散了在不同環境, 為甚麼全人類的男人都一齊演化了:不用哺乳, 乳頭退化? 是甚麼全球環境因素令所有雄性都失去哺乳能力。 點解分散了, 在不同環境下的品種/物種, 會有同步的演化(或叫退化)? 唔該演俾我睇. | |
| |
正論是 以此論點, 在某一環境下的優勢種應該是最能適應該環境的物種‧ 那麼, 愛斯基摩人理應體毛較多, 肥脂較其它人種多, 可以, 不見得是如此. 在熱帶地區的人, 皮膚應銀色, 反光, 不吸熱, 實際是膚色深, 吸熱較快. 何解? | |
有關膚色，基本上黑色素可以「減少紫外線的傷害」，減少癌症 但黑色素也可以妨害維他命D的製造。 ----------- 男性乳頭上，請注意男性不是一個物種。 科普雜誌 SCIENTIFIC AMERICA 有以下解釋(給他4歲的女兒) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples (簡單說，因為女性有!) -------------------- 總的來說，請你先了解何為進化論 當中你誤解了至少以下 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IBladder.shtml Misconception: “Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better.” Response: It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, “good enough” is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence. Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal—but that doesn’t mean they got “better.” After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade—and what was “better” a million years ago, may not be “better” today. What works “better” in one location might not work so well in another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IDtrying.shtml Misconception: “Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IEneeds.shtml Misconception: “Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need.’ ” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIBcrisis.shtml Misconception: “Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.” Response: Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ev ... IIDincomplete.shtml Misconception: “Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is currently unable to give a total explanation of life.” Response: Evolutionary science is a work in progress. New discoveries are made and explanations adjusted when necessary. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. Research continues to add to our knowledge. While we don’t know everything about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIEflawed.shtml Misconception: “The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won’t admit it.” Response: Scientists have examined the supposed “flaws” that creationists claim exist in evolutionary theory and have found no support for these claims. These “flaws” are based on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of evidence. Scientists continue to refine the theory of evolution, but that doesn’t mean it is “flawed.” Science is a very competitive endeavor and if “flaws” were discovered, scientists would be more than glad to point them out. | |
請注意進化是自然過程。演化是有「得過且過」(「適者」生存，不是「強者」生存）的特色。 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IIIimpression.shtml Survival of the fittest A better way of expressing this idea is “survival of the fit enough.” Portraying nature as “red in tooth and claw,” wherein living things always engage in a life-or-death struggle against competitors grossly oversimplifies what is really going on. Many life forms get by for eons by existing in niches that other organisms are not suited for. For example, brine shrimp live in water that is unsuitable for potential aquatic enemies, and they apparently have no significant competitors for food. 而且演化是自然過程，具歷史性。不可7天造世的一步登天，每一個過程也要適者生存一番。 | |
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/ ... skin_color_2000.pdf （要了解自然，書是要讀的…） | |
那整版都是變成了 GOOGLE, YAHOO search 無意義, 又何必叫討論區呢 | |
對，學術討論本是充滿參考。不淮參考的討論區學術上不值一文。 | |
有野派, 也不用知派了甚麼, 總之就係, 派.....派.......派,,....派.....派.......派 | |
真抱歉, 對於只能用連結作回應的討論, 本人無趣矣. 又似男人去嫖妓, 嫖著一個你一邊扑野, 佢一邊織冷衫, 聽 ipod 既女, 如同嚼蠟 | |
未進化係會咁樣咖啦, 進化到一定程度就會有趣矣, 可等之哉 咁係因為您表現不如理想影响到妓女的專業操守 | |
回復 beebeechan 估唔到同你論仲有少少引 起碼唔會懟堆拎過黎 | |
咁又唔係, 我一樣會拎  | |
DA DA，恐龍的生命之樹(現代進化論)  |
| 1 [2] > |
