Chapter 1372 Knowledge Defects

Darwin's thought may explain the horse's hoof, but can it explain the basis of living things?

In a sense, the history of biology is composed of a series of black boxes; when one black box is opened, the other black box will naturally appear.

A black box is a strange term. It refers to an item with certain functions, but it is not visible to people or sometimes it gives people a sense of mystery because it is difficult to understand. Computers are one of the best examples of black box.

Most people don't have to know exactly how it works when using this amazing machine, you can handle text, draw tables or play games without having to think about what is done inside the host.

Imagine that we shipped a computer with a long-lived battery back to King Arthur's yard more than 1,000 years ago. How would people of that era react to seeing this weird machine?

Perhaps most people will be afraid, maybe they are lucky that some people want to figure it out, and some people will find that letters appear on the keyboard screen as soon as they touch it.

A string of characters related to computer commands will change the content displayed on the screen, and after a while he will understand many commands. The medieval British people would think that they had uncovered the secrets of computers.

At the same time, someone happened to open the case to visit the working principle in the machine. For a time, 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 could explain biological phenomena.

Ancient people were stunned to face plants or animals, trying to find out what was going on in the face of unfathomable technology, but they were really groping in the dark.

The earliest biological research could only be to take the most primitive method, that is, to observe with the naked eye. Around 400 BC, in the era of Hippocrates, which was respected by Westerners as the "father of doctors", some books describe some common symptoms of illness and believe that illness is related to diet and other physiological causes, and is not done by God.

Despite having a good start, in the face of the internal mechanism of organisms, the ancients were still at a loss. They believed that everything was composed of four factors: earth, air, fire and water.

The organisms are believed to be composed of four kinds of "body fluids": blood, yellow bile, black bile and mucus. Westerners at that time also insisted that all diseases were caused by excessive body fluids in one of them.

Aristotle, the greatest biologist and greatest philosopher in ancient Greece, was born when Hippocrates was alive. Unlike all his predecessors, he realized that the understanding of nature requires systematic observation and research.

Through careful and careful study, he realized that there is an amazing order in the biological world, which has taken the biological research to take an important first step forward.

Aristotle classified animals into two categories, bloody and bloody. This is basically consistent with the modern classification of vertebrates and non-vertebrates.

Among vertebrates, he found maru, birds and fish. He classified amphibians and reptiles as one category, while snakes as one category.

His observations were not of instrumental help, but many of Aristotle's reasoning and knowledge were correct and reasonable, although it was only thousands of years after his death that people gained.

In the nearly thousand years after Aristotle, only a few important biologists appeared. One of them was Garen, a physician in Rome in the 2nd century AD.

Garen's research shows that it is not enough to understand biological phenomena by merely studying the inside and outside of plants. For example, Garen tried to understand the functions of animal organs. Although he knew that the heart was the organ that outputs blood, he knew that the blood circulation eventually returned to the heart through observation.

Galen mistakenly believed that the blood output from the heart was used to "irrigate" other tissues and organs. At the same time, the blood produced in the body was constantly used to supply the heart. His understanding has been used as teaching content for nearly 1,500 years.

1500 years, what is the concept of time? A false knowledge has been worshipped 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 flowed continuously in one direction and then flowed back to the heart after a week.

Harry calculated that if the heart can output two ounces of blood every time it beats, and calculated 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 weight of a person!

Since it is obviously impossible to create so much blood in such a short time, the blood must have been repeatedly used.

Ha used this logical reasoning to prove that an unobserved activity with the help of easily calculated Arabic numerals is unprecedented, and it laid another foundation for modern biological theory.

The first breakthrough was the invention of a microscope. Galileo used this microscope to surprise the insect's compound eyes. Stele used it to observe the eyes, tongue, antennae and other parts of bees and weevils.

Malpifi confirmed that the blood circulates through capillaries and describes the development of the embryos in the early stages of the chick's heart. Neichwei Agru used it to observe plants, and Swimodum used it to dissect the mayfly.

Livan Luke was the first to use it to observe cells; Robert Hooker has observed and described corks and leaves, although he has overlooked the importance of these things.

Since then, an unpredictable microscopic world has begun. In order to overturn the assertions about organisms, the scientist Charles Singer, a scientist and historian, wrote: "The complexity of biological limitations shown here is just like the orderly and magnificent astronomical world revealed by Galileo to our previous generation, philosophically inspiring, although it took a long time for the latter to be deeply rooted in people's hearts."

In other words, sometimes the emergence of black boxes requires humans to correct all theories. In this case, great reluctance will inevitably occur.

By the early 19th century, the theory of biological cells was finally proposed by Marshall Schretton and Heodor Schwann.

Schretton was originally engaged in research on plant tissues. The central argument he put forward was about the important black dots in cells, that is, the existence of the nucleus.

Schwan focused on the study of animal tissues. Although it was difficult to observe cells, he felt that the cell structure of animals was similar to that of plants, and in a sense, cells were living duli bodies.

"The answer to the organism's driving force is in every cell," he wrote. Schretton also asked the question, "The most basic question is, what is the source of this tiny organism, is it a cell?"

Schretton and Schwann's research work was in the early to mid-19th century. It was during the period when Darwin traveled and wrote "Origin of Species". For Darwin and other scientists at that time, cells were a black box, but he could explain biological phenomena outside of cells well.

The idea of ​​biological evolution was not first created by Darwin. However, he gave the most systematic description and explanation of the evolutionary principle of organisms, namely the natural selection of biological mutations, which is his original creation.

At the same time, discussions on the black box of cells have been steadily carried out. Cell studies have pushed the microscope to the limit due to 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 small and important details of cell tissue are seen by light microscopes. Without further development of science and technology, the black box method of cells is opened.

At the end of the 19th century, with the rapid progress of physical research, j.j. Thomson discovered electricity, and decades later, people invented electron microscopes. Since the wavelength of electrons is shorter than that of visible light, even the smallest substances under the "illumination" of electric light can be seen.

There are also many practical difficulties in using electron microscopy, at least the electron beam may destroy specimens. But people finally found a solution to this problem. After World War II, electron microscopy was officially born.

The underlying cell tissue was found: the gaps and mitochondria in the nucleus, a double-layer film of a power plant called a cell. The same simple cell seen under a light microscope now looks very different under an electron microscope.

The surprise that scientists showed in the 20th century when they saw the complex structure of cells was the same as the surprise that early light microscope scientists saw in the fine structures of insects.

Science is an adventure and advancement. Going to search for areas that have never been known, and even often discovering will overturn the old knowledge structure and content.

But not everyone can receive this kind of knowledge. In many cases, most humans show only stubbornness and stubbornness. They are only willing to believe in known "common sense" and are unwilling to receive real knowledge.

In the 20th century, the level of scientific development at this time was enough to enable biologists to embark on the most difficult black box to open. Questions like "how life moves" are far from answered by Darwin and those of his time.

For Darwin, vision is a black box, but after the continuous efforts of many biochemists, we humans can almost clearly answer questions like vision.

It would be far from enough to explain the anatomy of the entire eye from an evolutionary perspective, like Darwin and those who advocate evolution today. Every anatomical step and marriage that Darwin believed was so simple actually contains an extremely complex biochemical process that is difficult to express in words.

Here, biochemistry presents a small challenge to Darwin's theory. It is obvious that anatomy can answer questions about whether molecules can produce evolution.

The same is true for the records about fossils. It doesn’t matter whether there are any gaps in the records. If there are indeed gaps, it is important to whether the recorded fossils can be clearly defined.

Because the records about fossils cannot tell us whether the interaction between the residus and rhodopsin, conducting proteins and phospholipases is developing step by step.

In terms of how biogeography or population biology is studied, and also in terms of the traditional interpretation of evolutionary theory of some basic organs or species.

But this does not mean that accidental changes are myths or Darwin can't explain anything. In fact, his theory of microevolution is quite good, nor does it mean that phenomena like population genetics are also important.

In fact, they are indeed worth studying. Now the black box of cells has been opened, but 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 limited by observation methods and theory. However, everything in the world is limited. It is a very difficult thing to explain the limitation by finiteness.

And if you are not even willing to face up to this limitation and try to explain everything in this world with current science, it is not only arrogant, but also stupid and self-righteous.

But this generation, which is about to enter the twenty-first century, is a complete believer of scientism. Most people think that science is great and impossible, just as religious people describe the gods they believe in. omniscient and omnipotent.

Since entering the industrial age, human cultural level has been greatly improved, but this is only the overall level, and other reference objects are the illiterate agricultural populations before.

So it really comes down to it. What modern humans have only improved their literacy rate. The understanding of science and thinking patterns are almost different from that of ancient farmers.

For example, the theory of evolution mentions knowledge about biological evolution and development. Generation after generation, most people are educated by such theory. We have all learned that fish have become amphibians, amphibians have become reptiles, and reptiles have evolved into birds. Birds have become masculine animals.

Obviously, it is much easier to explain these processes to school-age children than to prove them.

It can be said that evolution theory is the only theory that has spread education widely around the world without being rigorously vindicated by science.

Despite this, Evolution still claims that evolution theory is not just a theory, but a scientific fact. The problem is that there is no choice between God creating everything and evolving everything.

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 theory was to find fossil evidence. This effort continued from his time to today. How many paleontologists, geologists, monumental excavators, construction workers, drillers, oil drillers, archaeologists, anthropologists, students, and amateur fossil enthusiasts were persevering in digging holes on the ground.

This is simply proved to be proved!

But science is rigorous, and this assumption has not been strictly proved, but this does not seem to prevent most people from regarding it as a sacred scripture in the name of science.

But the problem is that most people don’t actually care about science. They care about food, clothing, housing and transportation, and their own expectations. Of course, knowledge is usually not included. Even if they are curious, most of them are reflected in the gossip.

Who cares about what science is? As long as the authoritative experts say yes, it must be. This is what most people think. They are willing to be brainwashed and controlled, just like a flock of sheep, only seeking food, clothing, and comfort.

When talking about Darwin's theory of evolution, what fossils can prove the existence of transitional populations?

Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould is a staunch advocate of evolution, but he also recently pointed out that all paleontologists know that fossil evidence of transitional forms is minimal and that transitional forms between major races are extremely lacking.

Gould did not say that there were few fossils, he only said that there were very few fossils that could be used to prove the Darwinian theory. In fact, there were many fossils from ancient and modern ethnic groups.

For example, archaeologists have discovered primate fossils, native human fossils, and Homo sapiens that had become extinct in the early days, but no fossils that could connect apes and humans.

.duyidu.

Read it

Awkward situation similar to the phenomenon of flowering plants in Darwin and a blind spot in evolution theory was discovered.

Millions of fossils are stored in many geological libraries. Why did humans find representatives of plants that did not bloom 300 million years ago, and representatives of flowering plants that still survive 100 million years ago and today, but cannot find representatives of intermediate species that can be between two species?

These intermediate species are the ironclad evidence that can support evolution theory. You must know that there are no such intermediate plants in the world today, and there is no trace of them on the fossils. This is the death of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Harvard University biologist Stephen Jay Gould also discussed anti-human ethics experiments. According to information obtained by the intelligence department of the Archaeology Society, it can be seen that many British laboratories have been secretly conducting human-animal hybrid embryos in the past few years, and have created more than 150 hybrid embryos that contain both human and animal genes.

Although these experiments are said to be to find effective treatments for a variety of diseases through research on embryonic stem cells, this news has attracted widespread attention from the society after it was exposed.

Scientists who "expert for experiments" are also questioned because of ethical issues.

But in fact, crossing the bottom line of ethics and morality has a great temptation for many medical scientists: crossing it, some of the most difficult scientific mysteries may even be solved.

For example, how do apes evolve the root cause of the myocardial disease?

The American magazine Wired listed the various "immoral" experiments that scientists want to do the most. If these "destroying" experiments can really abandon the constraints of ethical and morality, then modern science will be able to complete an epic leap...

There are no such intermediate plants in the world today, and they cannot be found on the fossils. This is a serious and critical issue that needs to be thoroughly analyzed in depth.

Richard Milton, a science journalist, wrote a very keen comment: "The absence of fossils in the intermediate species prompted me to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution for the first time. From here I began to consider something I had never thought about before: Is Darwin's theory of evolution scientifically flawed?" To be continued.)
Chapter completed!