Fortune Telling Collection - Free divination - What is the origin of life? What are the ancestors of mankind? Can you explain it with the Book of Changes?

What is the origin of life? What are the ancestors of mankind? Can you explain it with the Book of Changes?

How did people and life originate? It's not that the scientific explanation is unclear, but that some people who hate science don't admit it. First of all, the origin of human beings is no longer a problem. Fossils and DNA technology have long solved the mystery of human origin. Secondly, there are many hypotheses about the origin of life, but none of them can produce the core conclusive evidence, that is, to repeat the birth process of life through experiments. However, the development of modern science is only a short time, so we should have confidence in science. Science is the most reliable way to acquire knowledge. We don't believe in this most reliable method. What else do we believe? Everyone who likes to make a wild guess can put forward countless hypotheses at will, but without scientific verification methods, it will always be a personal hypothesis of little significance.

In April 2002, the authoritative academic journal Nature published a study and found that the ancestors of primates (for example, we humans are the most typical primates), that is, a mammal about the size of a mole or a squirrel, once existed with dinosaurs on the earth, in the Cretaceous period about 80 million years ago, and fortunately escaped large-scale dinosaurs.

Of course, there is also a popular saying in the international biosphere that dinosaurs have never been extinct, and now birds are one of them. Note that this means that birds are not evolved from dinosaurs, but are directly equivalent to dinosaurs. Loy, editor-in-chief of Guo Ke. Com, publicly supports this assumption and thinks it is reasonable. After the extinction of dinosaurs (at least, they no longer occupy the dominant position on the earth), these mammals, like moles, got the opportunity to grow and develop, so they continued to multiply, increase their numbers crazily and continue to differentiate. Finally, about 4 million years ago, one of their descendants, a species called apes, walked out of the mountains and grasslands of Africa, and they began to walk upright and gradually spread to Europe and Asia. Later, several waves of apes kept coming out of Africa, and it took hundreds of thousands to one or two million years to destroy their predecessors who came out of Africa, or they had mating behavior and gene recombination, and finally ruled the earth, that is, our ancestors.

This research report, published in the journal Nature, infers the species differentiation curve of the whole primate by analyzing the number of primates with fossils and their differentiation curves, thus obtaining the origin time of the earliest ancestors. The conclusion is about 810.5 million years ago. The previous gene comparison method concluded that 90 million years ago, the ancestors of primates just differentiated from other mammals. The ancestors of these primates are very small and belong to rodents. Who are the ancestors of real primates? Through the research and judgment of fossils, scientists have given several candidate lists, namely: Pulga Toli monkey, fruit-eating monkey, cluster monkey, lazy monkey, giant monkey, Malagasy grey lemur and magic mouse.

Let's look at it in chronological order:

In 2002, a small mammal, Carpolestes, which was discovered by fossils in Wyoming, USA 56 million years ago, caused a great sensation, because they were considered by scientists as transitional animals from insect-eating animals to primates and the ancestors of all primates.

In 2003, Nature reported the ancient ancestor fossils of marmosets and sloths 38 million years ago, believing that they were closely related to the origin of primates.

In 2007, Science magazine reported the results of genetic comparative analysis of monkeys, and thought that they were close relatives of primates.

In 2008, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that Madagascar chinchilla lemurs may have carried the AIDS virus known 85 million years ago, and they may be the earliest ancestors of human beings.

By 20 10, researchers at the University of Florida in the United States believe that Labidolemur kayi, a mammal extinct 55 million years ago, is an important part of the origin and evolutionary history of primates.

20 12 10 at the "72nd Annual Meeting of Vertebrate Zoology" held in the United States, Stephen, a paleoanthropologist from Yale University? Chester and other scientists reported their findings on the bones of Purgatorius monkeys. These fossils come from North America and originated in the Paleocene 65 million years ago. At that time, non-bird dinosaurs had just died out, and mammals were just trying to reproduce. Tolly monkeys in Pulga are most likely the ancestors of primates.

It was studied 65 million years ago, and Pulga Toli monkey is the first primate ancestor candidate on the list!

Please don't worry, let's push forward and see what else may be the earliest ancestor of mankind.

In 20 17, Nature published a new study by paleontologists, which was led by scientists from China. The first author of the article is Han Jian, a researcher at Northwest University, and the corresponding authors are Academician Shu Degen of Northwest University and Professor Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. They found an ancient fossil that may be related to human ancestors. The researchers analyzed 45 fossils found in sedimentary rocks in Shaanxi, China, and thought that these fossils were related to human beings. This animal is named Saccorhytus coronarius, and its name comes from its squid-like body and crown-like mouth.

Scientists believe that this kind of dinoflagellate is the ancestor of all vertebrates. They lived in the early CAMBRIAN about 540 million years ago, between the grains of sand on the ancient seabed.

What exactly do they look like? They are symmetrical little creatures, like masks only a few millimeters long. There is a hole in the middle of their bodies, which is their mouth to eat, and there are wrinkles around their mouths, which proves that their mouths can be opened to swallow bigger food. They are also fauna, and fauna is an important part of biological evolution history. Simon Conway Morris, a researcher at Cambridge University, pointed out: "We think this faucet may represent the beginning of the evolution of various species, including ourselves. From the naked eye, these fossils we studied are very similar to black rice, but the results we observed under the microscope are surprising. All hind-mouthed animals have the same ancestor, and we think this is what we are looking for. "

It has been studied 540 million years ago, and scientists are still not satisfied. They believe that life on earth originated about 3.5 billion years ago. So far, the oldest biological fossil discovered by researchers is cyanobacteria from Western Australia. They are the most primitive life known. Maybe they existed before 3.5 billion years ago, but at least we think they existed no later than 3.5 billion years ago, that is, in the early CAMBRIAN. So far, scientists have studied to the point of 3.5 billion years ago.

But what if it was 35 years ago? In other words, what substances have those cyanobacteria evolved? This may involve the earliest origin of life. Cyanobacteria may have evolved from microorganisms such as bacteria, which lived in the ancient ocean for billions of years. The early form of bacteria (even viruses) is organic macromolecules. It has been proved that the universe is full of organic macromolecules. Scientists have found that a large number of carbon-containing molecules with complex structures can be produced in chemical factories around young stars in the universe. Complex organic molecular substances have also been detected on comets and planets before, but they mainly come from inside the solar system. However, according to a research paper published in Nature on 20 1 1, it is very likely that some "unrecognizable infrared radiation" in the cosmic spectrum comes from organic macromolecules formed around young stars. Such a large number of complex organic macromolecules were brought to the earth at the early stage of the formation of the earth, that is, 4.5 billion years ago.

However, how these organic macromolecules rooted in the earth for a long time gradually evolved into primitive life cells in the marine environment of the earth, or how they played a role in the wonderful process of life evolution, is the most critical issue.

In this case, we might as well ask another question: how did organic macromolecules evolve into life?

We can't answer this question at the moment. There are many organic macromolecules in the universe, but how to evolve into the physical and chemical process of life is still unknown. Scientists have simulated the early atmospheric composition of the earth and done many scientific experiments, but they have not yet reproduced the original process of the birth of life. In this regard, we should wait more patiently, rather than casually believe those assumptions without any basis.

What's more, "Cheng Chun 888" is too confident in the function and significance of "dialectical reasoning" and exaggerates its status. Dialectics and reasoning are very important and emphasized in the scientific system, but they are not the only ways to explain the nature of things. You know, science not only emphasizes dialectics and reasoning, but also needs to produce objective evidence that can withstand repeated experiments. Otherwise, only dialectics and reasoning are unconvincing under any circumstances.

For example, some people like to keep their mouths shut about the "parallel universe", and many mysterious things are related to the "parallel universe" The idea of "parallel universe" comes from the study of light. Because some phenomena are incomprehensible, some people have forcibly established a "parallel universe" from a philosophical point of view. This "parallel universe" theory relies on dialectics and reasoning, and at most it is mathematical inference. As long as it seems to "answer questions", it can only be regarded as a kind of metaphysics due to the lack of empirical evidence. In other words, "parallel universe" is a marginal theory so far, but it is a "metaphysical speculation" in physics, a game of thinking, and it is not recognized as the mainstream scientific theory at all. There is also string theory, which is a little higher than the "level" of the "parallel universe", because string theory puts forward a method of how to verify it-building a super particle accelerator on the scale of the Milky Way (some scientists even think that the diameter of the particle accelerator needs to exceed the size of the whole universe)-which is obviously impossible, that is to say, it cannot be proved, but at least it is impossible in theory. Supporters of the "parallel universe" theory believe that even if parallel universes exist, they will never be verified theoretically. It is reported in the news that the density of a certain area in space is not right after taking photos, which may be the interference of parallel universes in our universe, but this statement is completely wrong. Theoretically, the basis of parallel universes is that there can be no information interference between all universes, otherwise it is not called parallel universes. Lack of empirical function is the biggest defect of parallel universe theory.

Of course, the parallel universe itself is philosophy, not science. Philosophy and metaphysics lack empirical functions, so they are not qualified to replace scientific methods to explain the principles of things. At best, they talk some specious nonsense. In other words, if you want to explain the origin of life, you must rely on the most reliable scientific methods, not on philosophy or metaphysics without experience and ability. Otherwise, it is lazy behavior in thinking.

I browsed the answer area, and there was a netizen named "Lin Xuejin Magpie". He replied: "The origin of life is the biggest, deepest and farthest mystery, and it is also the ultimate working point of science. So far, science can't explain it, and neither can other religions. Only Zhouyi has a satisfactory standard answer. " However, this is a wrong metaphysical thinking, and there are problems everywhere. For example, he believes that "the origin of life is the biggest, deepest and farthest mystery, and it is also the ultimate working point of science." But the question of the origin of life is far from the "biggest, deepest and longest" scientific mystery, because although we still can't know the specific biochemical process of the origin of life, at least we don't think this process is particularly mysterious.

What I want to explain is that life is actually a self-organizing system, and this system can also be simulated by computer in theory. In other words, artificial intelligence or supercomputers will eventually have life through the upgrade of algorithms. Advanced life is naturally intelligent. Human wisdom comes from the organizational form of neurons. If artificial intelligence simulates the link structure of human neurons, it can have the same wisdom as human beings. About ten years ago, European and American scientists digitized the brains of nematodes, which was equivalent to simulating the brains of recombinant nematodes with computers. If the human brain can be digitally simulated in the future, it is equivalent to letting human beings live in computers. Since life can be virtualized in scientific theory, it is no longer mysterious, and it is only a matter of time before it is solved.

Furthermore, this Scholar Magpie is a typical far-fetched association, which links the scientific issue of the origin of life with the metaphysical classic Yijing. Science and metaphysics are not a way of thinking. Science pays more attention to measurement. Without measurement, it is not called science, and metaphysics does not pay attention to practice. The emphasis is on comparison, that is, trying to connect two unrelated things. It is lazy and irresponsible to say that the origin of life is related to the Book of Changes.

For example, he gave the proof process, which is like this: life originated from the yin-yang movement of "being" and "being". His understanding of "nothing" is a seemingly "chaotic" world. Then, there was a "big bang" in this "chaotic" world, and everything in the world evolved, including life. It sounds mysterious. In fact, he directly transferred the idea of "One, Two, Three Things of Tao Sheng" in the Tao Te Ching to the Book of Changes. The essential connotation of the Book of Changes is the change of things, which has little to do with the Tao Te Ching. But even the Tao Te Ching is just "seemingly correct nonsense".

What is the origin of life? Metaphysics can be interpreted as "Tao", which is the origin of life. But what is Tao? The metaphysician is prevaricated and vague, and can only be forcibly interpreted as "the laws of the universe" and other nonsense. This means that nothing is explained or nothing can be explained.

As for what "one life is two, two lives are three, and three lives are all things", it is just a simple and simple philosophical thinking, and it really has nothing to do with science. As we all know, the development of things is becoming more and more complicated. Its initial appearance is simple, and everything has gradually developed from simple to complex. The problem is that this idea is not particularly brilliant, and what even a primary school student can guess really does not reflect the so-called "great wisdom." Moreover, how organic molecules evolve into the initial life and how simple life evolves into cells requires a scientific and detailed process, and it is not a simple metaphysical nonsense like "one life, two lives, three lives, and three lives are all things" to complete the task.

Therefore, don't use the Book of Changes to explain the origin of life. Otherwise, it is a blind explanation, and you can't get anything of real value.

The last sentence: it is easy to guess blindly, and exploration needs science.

Author: Questioner