PVHg’s Home would like to introduce below some English articles on Evolution Theory. If you want to know whether the theory of evolution is a scientific theory or not, you should read these articles. PVHg’s Home welcomes the ones who are able to translate these articles into Vietnamese. Thank you very much.
PVHg’s Home xin giới thiệu dưới đây một số bài báo Anh ngữ về Thuyết tiến hóa. Nếu bạn muốn biết Thuyết tiến hóa có phải là một lý thuyết khoa học hay không, bạn nên đọc những bài báo này. PVHg’s Home xin hoan nghênh những bạn có thể chuyển những bài báo này sang tiếng Việt. Xin trân trọng cảm ơn.
● Mathematicians and Evolution (Toán học và Thuyết tiến hóa)
by Casey Luskin, July 11, 2006
As recently highlighted here, mathematics is an academic locale where scientific skepticism of Neo-Darwinism can survive the current political climate! Discovery Institute recently received an e-mail from someone commenting on the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List where over 600 Ph.D. scientists from various fields agree that they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” This skeptic of evolutionary-skepticism e-mailer wrote “I’m a mathematician and certainly am NOT qualified to support such a statement. Only evolutionary biologists are qualified to respond here.” While the Dissent from Darwinism list does contain individuals trained in evolutionary biology, the question remains “Is the objection valid?”
The truth is that mathematics has a strong tradition of giving cogent critique of evolutionary biology. After all, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally based upon an algorithm which uses a mathematically describable trial and error process to attempt to produce complexity. Population genetics is rife with mathematics. In fact, one criticism of the alleged transitional fossil sequences for whales is that they represent evolutionary change on too rapid a timescale to be mathematically feasible. It seems that there is no good reason why those trained in mathematics cannot comment on the ability of the Neo-Darwinian mutation-selection process to generate the complexity of life.
One of the best known mathematical forays into evolution was the 1966 Wistar Symposium, held in Philadelphia, where mathematicians and other scientists from related fields congregated to assess whether Neo-Darwinism is mathematically feasible. The conference was chaired by Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar. The general consensus of many meeting participants was that Neo-Darwinism was simply not mathematically tenable.
The proceedings of that conference, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), reports various challenges to evolution presented by respected mathematicians and similar scholars at the conference. For example, the conference chair Sir Peter Medawar stated at the outset:
“[T]he immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. … There are objections made by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing … These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.”
(Sir Peter Medawar, “Remarks by the Chairman,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. xi, emphasis in original)
Various scientists, including some mathematicians, proceeded to comment about problems with Neo-Darwinism:
“[A]n opposite way to look at the genotype is as a generative algorithm and not as a blue-print; a sort of carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living organism of the right kind if the environment in which it develops is a proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be written in some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with the alphabet of this language, but it is a long step from the alphabet to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to have rules, and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages. No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call “genetic grammaticality” has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation.” (Murray Eden, “Inadequacies as a Scientific Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 11)
“[I]t seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent.” (Stanislaw M. Ulam, “How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 21)
“We do not know any general principle which would explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus, to conclude, we believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” (Marcel Schutzenberger, “Algorithms and Neo-Darwinian Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 75)
These are potent arguments from academics qualified to assess the mathematical ability of a random / selective process to produce complexity. While evolutionary biologists and other types of biologists can yield many insights into evolutionary biology, scientists other than biologists, such as mathematicians, are most certainly qualified to comment on the feasibility of Neo-Darwinian evolution.
● Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (Tại sao Darwin sai về cây sự sống)
by Graham Lawton 21 January 2009
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921-600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life/
● New Scientist issue 2692: DARWIN WAS WRONG (Tạp chí New Scientist số 2692: DARWIN ĐÃ SAI)
https://www.newscientist.com/issue/2692/
● COMPILATION OF QUOTES ON THE COMPLEXITY OF A CELL AND THE SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY OF LIFE’S ORIGIN (Ý kiến các nhà khoa học nói về tính phức tạp của tế bào và bí ẩn khoa học về nguồn gốc sự sống)
by Ashby L. Camp
http://theoutlet.us/Quotesoncomplexityofcellandoriginoflife.pdf
● Spontaneous Life … Dead in the water (Học thuyết sự sống hình thành tự phát chết cứng)
by Dr John Sanford [1]
● Genetic Entropy & Genome Degeneration (Sự thoái hóa của bộ gene)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-y_dmi_oF4
[1] John C. Sanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford
PhamVietHung's Home 
– Mọi sự sống đều có thể tiến hóa, ngay cả trong bệnh tật, ngay cả ung thư trong tương lai có thể sẽ tiến hóa thành 1 dạng sống ý thức tự lây nhiễm riêng nó. Các loại giun ký sinh, nấm ký sinh, khuẩn đơn và đa bào, vi khuẩn extremophiles, khuẩn cổ, virus và viroids, prions .. đều có thể được tiến hóa nguy hiểm hơn trong tương lai. Nhưng lại có những loại vi khuẩn và virus ăn chính chúng, là khắc tinh của nhau trong thế giới tự nhiên. Các lĩnh vực nghiên cứu vi sinh cũng đang tìm hiểu và phát hiện thế giới siêu vi cũng có 1 số hành vi nhận thức nhất định, các loại khuẩn cũng có thể cảnh giác và trừng phạt nhau những cá thể nào thực sự ăn bám mà không mang lại lợi ích chung.
ThíchThích
Trả lời bạn Lê Tuấn,
Mọi sự sống đều có thể BIẾN HÓA chứ không phải TIẾN HÓA. Bạn Lê Tuấn sử dụng chữ TIẾN HÓA theo nghĩa BIẾN HÓA,dễ gây nên hiểu lầm. Chữ TIẾN HÓA đã được sử dụng để nói về những biến đổi từ loài này thành loài khác (học thuyết Darwin), và điều đó chỉ là chuyện tưởng tượng, phỏng đoán của ông Darwin, không có trong thực tế.
Vì thế những sinh vật biến đổi lạ lùng như bạn Lê Tuấn đề cập đến cũng chỉ là BIẾN HÓA chứ không phải TIẾN HÓA.
PVHg
ThíchThích
– – Xin phép đăng tổng hợp 1 số tiêu đề nghiên cứu khoa học gần cuối năm 2022:
– Các dạng đột phá trong máy tính lượng tử: qubit superconducting, Trapped ion, Photonics, Neutral atom, NV carbon, Silicon Spin qubit, Cat Qubits, Topological qubits, Time crystal system, Phase of matter 2d system. Nhiều công ty máy tính lượng tử xử dụng nhiều công nghệ khác nhau để cạnh tranh, chẳng hạn trong quang tử Photonics, công ty Xanadu thay vì các photon đơn lẻ, họ đã sử dụng ánh sáng bị ép lại squeezed light để tạo thành các qubit của nó. Nhiều công ty đã lên sàn chứng khoán, nhận từng bậc tài trợ khác nhau. Trong đó, các công ty sử dụng hệ thống công nghệ trung tính Neutral atom là có triển vọng khá cao, tháng 9/2022 này công ty Pasqal thông báo họ đã tạo ra Kiến trúc bộ xử lý lượng tử mới với 324 nguyên tử.
– Các siêu máy tính cổ điển trong tương lai: 2022, Exaflop hiện nay có công suất mạnh gần như có thể thực hiện các bài toán dự đoán thời tiết trước 2 tuần, giúp nâng cao thêm 1 bậc cho các dự án AI, nhưng chưa đủ. Tachyum vừa qua phát biểu họ sẽ có 1 siêu máy tính ở mức Zettaflop vào 2014 cho châu Âu, 1 máy tính mạnh hơn Exaflop, và có thể đủ mô phỏng toàn bộ vũ trụ cho 1 dự án như vậy. Tuy nhiên Intel của Mỹ tuyên bố sẽ có 1 Zettaflop vào 2017, hoặc có thể sớm hơn để bắt kịp sự cạnh tranh công nghệ thần tốc với Trung Quốc ???.
– Các loại nghiên cứu chỉnh sửa DNA hiện nay: Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs), TALEN, CRISPR and Cas9, A very fast CRISPR-Cas9 system (vfCRISPR), CRISPRoff, Cas12a, Cas12b for plant editing, Cas7-11 for RNA editing, Cas3, SuperFi-Cas9, Prime editing, CGBE (CG base editor), Base editors, CasMINI, Omegas, CASTs, Retron Library Recombineering (RLR), Pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR), artificial restriction DNA cutter ( ARCUT ), Chromosome-templated DNA repair, ADAR (enzyme adenosine deaminase for ARN editing )
– Các phương pháp độc quyền chữa trị bệnh, tái tạo, kháng khuẩn, kháng ung thư: Artifacial Replacement, Oncolytic and Helminthic therapies, Anaerobic therapy, Xenobot 3.0, Synthetic virology, Nanomedicine, Optogenetics for curing blindness and curing Parkinson, Immunology, Targeted therapy, Radiation therapy ( Gamma, photon, proton, neutron , electron , ion, Positron, helium, beta … ), High-intensity focused ultrasound for cancer treatment and Ultrasound therapy wound healing, Low-level laser for wound healing and High-level laser in surgery, Medical toxicology and anti toxic, Spatial Biology for cancer treatment, Stem Cell for regeneration, Gene editing, Fatty acid for anti bacterial, Artifacial Protein therapy ( such as using ProteinMPNN tool ), Glycans and Monoclonal Antibodies Conjugate, Angiogenesis inhibitor, Hormonal therapy, Directed enzyme prodrug therapy (DEPT), Anti aging and new biotech startups, Hydrogen and Medical gas therapy, Epigenetics, UV and Phototherapy therapy, Metal complexes for therapeutic applications, Venom therapy for anticancer, Mineral therapy, Ellagic acid, Heat treatment with Gold nanoparticles or carbon nanotubes, Hyperthermia therapy and Shock protein, Cold atmospheric plasma treatment for healing, Cryotherapy and nitrogen, Electromagnetic treatments and Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields), Alternating electric field therapy and Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, Human/non-human antibodies, Synthetic lethality, Xeno nucleic acid XNA, Fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), RNA therapeutics
ThíchThích