k*******n
发帖数: 190 | 1 进化论的一个基础是从简单到复杂,不断有新的形式来代替旧的,以更好地适应环境.
可是,从最原始的生命开始,就选择了双裸旋结构这中可以承载几亿年以后才会出现的高
级生命所需要的遗传记载体.
这好象是出生的第一天就中了超级彩票,而不是进化论的主题-勤劳致富. |
M*P
发帖数: 6456 | 2 没有证据证明DNA一直是载体。
进化论跟这个没什么关系。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.8
【在 k*******n 的大作中提到】
: 进化论的一个基础是从简单到复杂,不断有新的形式来代替旧的,以更好地适应环境.
: 可是,从最原始的生命开始,就选择了双裸旋结构这中可以承载几亿年以后才会出现的高
: 级生命所需要的遗传记载体.
: 这好象是出生的第一天就中了超级彩票,而不是进化论的主题-勤劳致富.
|
n******7
发帖数: 12463 | |
b****r
发帖数: 17995 | 4 首先，并不是所有生物都用DNA作为遗传物质，目前也基本公认最开始的遗传物质是RNA
其次，在高等生物里双链DNA也不是DNA存在的唯一方式
再次，赢者通吃是个相当普遍的现象 |
k*******n
发帖数: 190 | 5 双链DNA在单细胞世代有什么可以赢者通吃的优势?
遗传物质的种类单一得无法用进化论那样的多方出击的理论来解释. |
a***r
发帖数: 58 | 6 进化论又不是狗皮膏药,显然上帝或者非面大神更有说服力. |
D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 7 正因为dna一统江湖才说明进化论是真的啊。
好用的就不改了，不好用的才改啊，所以生命主流形式才从rna过渡到dna。
很多问题都被提了很多次了，楼主如果真感兴趣，去看看 盲眼的钟表匠 这本书。
另外coursera上面有关于进化的课，如果真感兴趣的话，可以选几门听一下。 |
M*P
发帖数: 6456 | 8 Lz估计只对反驳进化论的文章感兴趣
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.8
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 正因为dna一统江湖才说明进化论是真的啊。
: 好用的就不改了，不好用的才改啊，所以生命主流形式才从rna过渡到dna。
: 很多问题都被提了很多次了，楼主如果真感兴趣，去看看 盲眼的钟表匠 这本书。
: 另外coursera上面有关于进化的课，如果真感兴趣的话，可以选几门听一下。
|
L****l
发帖数: 594 | 9 没错
【在 M*P 的大作中提到】
: Lz估计只对反驳进化论的文章感兴趣
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.8
|
f*******n
发帖数: 141 | 10 物种如果是上帝创造的，上帝怎么会选择单一的DNA作为几乎所有生物的遗传物质呢？
没道理啊！物种只有进化而来，才需要一个共同的基础。进化论探讨的是物种起源，不
是生命起源，关于地球上生命的起源，目前还没有统一的认识。
我还是码多了，手贱！
【在 k*******n 的大作中提到】
: 进化论的一个基础是从简单到复杂,不断有新的形式来代替旧的,以更好地适应环境.
: 可是,从最原始的生命开始,就选择了双裸旋结构这中可以承载几亿年以后才会出现的高
: 级生命所需要的遗传记载体.
: 这好象是出生的第一天就中了超级彩票,而不是进化论的主题-勤劳致富.
|
|
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 11
why not?
【在 f*******n 的大作中提到】
: 物种如果是上帝创造的，上帝怎么会选择单一的DNA作为几乎所有生物的遗传物质呢？
: 没道理啊！物种只有进化而来，才需要一个共同的基础。进化论探讨的是物种起源，不
: 是生命起源，关于地球上生命的起源，目前还没有统一的认识。
: 我还是码多了，手贱！
|
c**n
发帖数: 5275 | |
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 13 目前得理论更支持RNA作为早期得遗传和功能载体
RNA既作为遗传载体，同时又可以实行蛋白质得酶功能。
DNA作为载体更稳定
同时RNA／DNA／Protein 功能分离才能使得多样化的出现。
这些基础知识只要学生物的都应该知道
楼主这是哪个教派过来砸场子的？ |
k*******n
发帖数: 190 | 14 RNA 和 DNA, 根本就是同一个机制中的东西.
另外,一个单细胞生物,怎么会需要一个能够在受精卵状态就记载将来肝脏的性状的遗传
载体???
这就象唐朝的算盘上装了几个TB的计算机内存一样,不合逻辑. |
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 15 lol
您真是来砸场子的？
哪位神仙告诉您单细胞的生物的DNA和高等生物的DNA承载能力一样的？
回去好好读读书， 别浪费了主赐给你的大好青春。
【在 k*******n 的大作中提到】
: RNA 和 DNA, 根本就是同一个机制中的东西.
: 另外,一个单细胞生物,怎么会需要一个能够在受精卵状态就记载将来肝脏的性状的遗传
: 载体???
: 这就象唐朝的算盘上装了几个TB的计算机内存一样,不合逻辑.
|
s**i
发帖数: 4448 | 16 lol
你也受不了，哈哈
【在 h*******o 的大作中提到】
: lol
: 您真是来砸场子的？
: 哪位神仙告诉您单细胞的生物的DNA和高等生物的DNA承载能力一样的？
: 回去好好读读书， 别浪费了主赐给你的大好青春。
|
k*******n
发帖数: 190 | 17 First, before you laugh, please look through my post clearly.
1. I didn't say human DNA and single cell life DNA contains the same amount
info carrier.
2. I said , the single cell doesn't need the info to tell it to grow into a
liver, so the coding mechanism should be much much simpler than the DNA can
do. The difference could be as huge as a paper and the computer RAM or SD
card.
Be scientists, not book(paper)worms.:)))) |
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 18 正好我今天吃饱了撑着
你的第二点要表达什么意思？
都承认单细胞生物的DNA的简单性了， 哪位主告诉你说随着复杂性提高，一定要变基本
原理的 ？
又是哪位主告诉你， 高等生物的基因／DNA 调控的机制和单细胞一样简单的？
您用的486不是2进制的？
当书虫是不好， 不过做了条蛆，还要说书不对就就搞笑了
amount
a
can
【在 k*******n 的大作中提到】
: First, before you laugh, please look through my post clearly.
: 1. I didn't say human DNA and single cell life DNA contains the same amount
: info carrier.
: 2. I said , the single cell doesn't need the info to tell it to grow into a
: liver, so the coding mechanism should be much much simpler than the DNA can
: do. The difference could be as huge as a paper and the computer RAM or SD
: card.
: Be scientists, not book(paper)worms.:))))
|
M*P
发帖数: 6456 | 19 细菌的基因组长度是人类的百分之一到千分之一。
amount
a
can
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.8
【在 k*******n 的大作中提到】
: First, before you laugh, please look through my post clearly.
: 1. I didn't say human DNA and single cell life DNA contains the same amount
: info carrier.
: 2. I said , the single cell doesn't need the info to tell it to grow into a
: liver, so the coding mechanism should be much much simpler than the DNA can
: do. The difference could be as huge as a paper and the computer RAM or SD
: card.
: Be scientists, not book(paper)worms.:))))
|
x********e
发帖数: 35261 | 20 已经懒得解释了
只想说，有时候你得深入了解一个东西才有能力去appreciate it
【在 k*******n 的大作中提到】
: 进化论的一个基础是从简单到复杂,不断有新的形式来代替旧的,以更好地适应环境.
: 可是,从最原始的生命开始,就选择了双裸旋结构这中可以承载几亿年以后才会出现的高
: 级生命所需要的遗传记载体.
: 这好象是出生的第一天就中了超级彩票,而不是进化论的主题-勤劳致富.
|
|
|
k*******n
发帖数: 190 | 21 如果算盘上出现了光刻的内存,就算只有几百BYTE的容量,也是一个跨越时空的超自然设
计.因为它兼顾了当时没有需要根本未知的世代.
如果连这一点,都不能认识到的话,还研究什么呢? |
s**i
发帖数: 4448 | 22 Winner takes all.
First of all, the emergence of life is an extremely rare event and
probability for it to happen twice on a single planet (even the whole
universe) is highly unlikely. Life starts with self replicating
macromolecules (current prevailing hypothesis). Once a macromolecule
acquires this revolutionary capability, it will soon overwhelm all rivals.
Like extremely efficient computer viruses, one winner triumphs all, taking
all the resources and spaces, leaving no room for competitors.
An analogy is the big bang, probably it only happens once in our universe.
|
k*******n
发帖数: 190 | 23 有一种以更简单的方式遗传的单细胞,会被用DNA的单细胞灭掉吗? 难道不能共存吗?
如果严格地WINNER TAKE ＡＬＬ的话,这世界难道不就成了单一物种的世界了吗？
你后面的比喻，ＢＩＧ BANG ,就更贴近创造论了. |
g**********r
发帖数: 605 | 24 进化论说：单螺旋或XNA的生物已经在10亿年前灭绝了！现在只剩下DNA双螺旋的啦！！ |
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 25 "the emergence of life is an extremely rare event and probability for it to
happen twice on a single planet (even the whole universe) is highly unlikely"
totally agree -- the probability for it to happen even ONCE BY
CHANCE is highly unlikely.
【在 s**i 的大作中提到】
: Winner takes all.
: First of all, the emergence of life is an extremely rare event and
: probability for it to happen twice on a single planet (even the whole
: universe) is highly unlikely. Life starts with self replicating
: macromolecules (current prevailing hypothesis). Once a macromolecule
: acquires this revolutionary capability, it will soon overwhelm all rivals.
: Like extremely efficient computer viruses, one winner triumphs all, taking
: all the resources and spaces, leaving no room for competitors.
: An analogy is the big bang, probably it only happens once in our universe.
:
|
s**i
发帖数: 4448 | 26 You are here stroking your keyboard...
So it had happened.
Not null.
And don't go to your creation theory. That's throwing hands in the air.
Who created the creator?
to
unlikely"
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: "the emergence of life is an extremely rare event and probability for it to
: happen twice on a single planet (even the whole universe) is highly unlikely"
: totally agree -- the probability for it to happen even ONCE BY
: CHANCE is highly unlikely.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 27
a)life created solely BY CHANCE is null.
b)complex life forms do exist on earth
==> creation of life is not by CHANCE.
【在 s**i 的大作中提到】
: You are here stroking your keyboard...
: So it had happened.
: Not null.
: And don't go to your creation theory. That's throwing hands in the air.
: Who created the creator?
:
: to
: unlikely"
|
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 28 a) Life do exist. And even it started at a teeny tiny chance, it did exist,
and is still evolving and will continue to exist.
b) Creation of life is of course NOT by Chance. There is NO CHANCE of the so
called creation. Pure conjecture does not stand a chance in science.
c) Call upon your creator and prove it ever existed.
So hard to communicate with the ignorant, lol.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: a)life created solely BY CHANCE is null.
: b)complex life forms do exist on earth
: ==> creation of life is not by CHANCE.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 29
>of course.
> exactly. life starts by design most likely because the alternative is a
null probability event.
> Pure conjecture does not stand a chance in science.
Can you prove any given event that's spontaneous or random?
no comments...
【在 h*******o 的大作中提到】
: a) Life do exist. And even it started at a teeny tiny chance, it did exist,
: and is still evolving and will continue to exist.
: b) Creation of life is of course NOT by Chance. There is NO CHANCE of the so
: called creation. Pure conjecture does not stand a chance in science.
: c) Call upon your creator and prove it ever existed.
: So hard to communicate with the ignorant, lol.
|
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 30 lol
What makes you so sure that the origin of life is a null probability?
Your god? So pathetic that you even bring up the "null probablity"
What's the probability of your creator?
-
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: >of course.
: > exactly. life starts by design most likely because the alternative is a
: null probability event.
: > Pure conjecture does not stand a chance in science.
: Can you prove any given event that's spontaneous or random?
: no comments...
|
|
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 31
what makes you so sure that origin of life (or the orderliess of the
universe) is by random events? "Pure conjecture does not stand a chance in
science."
【在 h*******o 的大作中提到】
: lol
: What makes you so sure that the origin of life is a null probability?
: Your god? So pathetic that you even bring up the "null probablity"
: What's the probability of your creator?
:
: -
|
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 32 because there are experiments that can at least partially prove such events
can and do happen.
If you don't know, stop showing off your ignorance and do some research
What's your evidence for your creator?
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: what makes you so sure that origin of life (or the orderliess of the
: universe) is by random events? "Pure conjecture does not stand a chance in
: science."
|
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 33 Small chance does NOT mean null probablity.
Small chance in an enormous amount of random events is meaningful.
Similarly, when that specific sperm from your dad hit the egg, it is a teeny
tiny chance for you to be "created" and bang it happened and here you are.
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
:
: what makes you so sure that origin of life (or the orderliess of the
: universe) is by random events? "Pure conjecture does not stand a chance in
: science."
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 34
I think you have missed the point.
I was refering to the probability given the conjecture
that life are formed from random events -- P(life| random generation
process).
For example, if this message is completely randomly (assuming independent
resampling from the printable character set) generated from the
standard US keyboard, what's the unconditional probability of its existence?
After-the-fact, you have observed that this message exists -- would you
conjucture that someone typed it, or it is generated from random assembly of
letters? Which one is more plausible?
BTW, the message has about 80 letters, one out of all possible ~95^80 unique
permutations.If I randomly type 1 message/sec, I would take ~3E142 years to
cover all possible permutation -- that's longer than the life of this
universe. This is just for a simple message.
So given
P(life|random generation proces)~0,
P(life|design)=1,
what's P(random generation process|life)?
【在 h*******o 的大作中提到】
: Small chance does NOT mean null probablity.
: Small chance in an enormous amount of random events is meaningful.
: Similarly, when that specific sperm from your dad hit the egg, it is a teeny
: tiny chance for you to be "created" and bang it happened and here you are.
|
