|
二. DNA解码终结了进化论
II.
DNA decoding terminates the Theory of Evolution
正如本书第一节所论述的那样，在达尔文时代，只有最原始的观察工具。他提出的进化论，只能是依据观察，从动物形体和考古化石形体比较上，加以判断的结果。如果他知道人和猩猩还有染色体对数的不同，一定不会提出他的进化论学说，更不用说当他知道DNA后的想法了。
As mentioned in Part 1 of this book, only the most
unsophisticated
observational tools were
available in Darwin’s
time. The Theory of Evolution he proposed was only based on his
observations and judgments derived from the comparisons of animal shapes and archaeological
fossils. Had he known the difference of chromosome pair numbers between
human beings and chimpanzees let alone the difference in DNAs, he would not
have proposed the Theory of Evolution.
当染色体数目被发现以后，这个“染色体对数的鸿沟”，让“无数的、连续的、轻微的变异”加上“自然选择”形成新物种的理论，已经没有立足之地。最近二十年来DNA的解码，证明全世界人来自一位男子、来自一对父母，使达尔文最基本论点之一的“群体进化”，完全成了笑柄。显然，在染色体和DNA的面前，进化论已经没有发言的余地。仅仅靠着骨头化石建立起来的进化论，是在错误的道路上，发展出来的一个错误的理论。
When chromosome numbers were discovered, the “gulf of
chromosome pair numbers” had completely disproved the evolutionists’ most
fundamental canons namely, ”numerous, successive, slight
modifications” as well as
“natural selection.” For the last twenty years, DNA coding has proved that
all human beings in the world come from the same man and the same parents,
which makes “population evolution”, one of the basic tenets of Darwin,
become a laughingstock. Obviously, in the face of chromosomes and DNAs, the
Theory of Evolution has lost the power of persuasion. Theory of Evolution
established on bones and fossils is an erroneous theory developed on the
wrong path.
你相信达尔文可能去商店买23.99对鸡蛋吗？染色体条数同样不可能非整数的变化。
Do
you believe that Darwin
could buy 23.99 pairs of eggs from the grocery? The number of chromosomes
can’t have a non-integral alteration either.
同时，任何新进化论的理论：如基因漂变( genetic drift)和DNA mutation等，都不可能实现将24对染色体的猿类转变为23对染色体的人，不可能跨越染色体对数的鸿沟。科学是无情的，达尔文的进化论，的确是像他给出的最坏预测：绝对地破产（“absolutely
break down”）。
Meanwhile, any new theory of evolution such as genetic drift,
DNA mutation, etc, can neither transform the
24-pair–chromosome apes to 23-pair-chromosome human beings nor fill the
gulf of chromosome pairs. Science is merciless. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution seems to
have realized his worst prediction, namely,. “absolutely breaking
down”.
而最有力量、最无可争辩的根据，是全世界人DNA编码的高度一致。“DNA随机突变加上自然选择决定进化方向”，这样的新进化论，在DNA序列极其一致的编码面前，只是毫无根据的想象。
The strongest and the
most indisputable evidence is the highly consistent DNA codes of all the
peoples in the world. The new theory of evolution that “DNA mutation at
random plus natural selection determines evolutionary direction” is
groundless imagination in face of the extremely consistent codes of DNA
sequences.
总之，是DNA编码和解码的科学研究成果终结了进化论。是生物体中的DNA编码敲响了进化论的丧钟，虽然这句话不够客气，但是，却是科学事实。进化论应该结束它的统治了，同时也必须将这个错误的理论，从孩子们的教科书中，彻底地清除出去。
In sum, the Theory of
Evolution is demolished by the scientific research achievements in DNA
coding and decoding. The DNA coding of biological material tolls a bell for
the Theory of Evolution. Though offensive, it is the scientific fact. We
should to end the rule of Theory of Evolution and remove this wrong theory
completely from children’s textbooks.
三骤变论 VS. 进化论
III.
The Theory of Saltation vs. The Theory of Evolution
在进化论破产之时，为了“跨越”染色体对数这个鸿沟，有人提出：人的染色体是由猿人的两条染色体对接融合的，因此24对染色体的猿人，因骤变成为了23对染色体的现代人。
To “overcome” the gulf of chromosome pair number bankrupting
the Theory of Evolution, it is suggested that human chromosome was
formed by fusion of two ape
chromosomes. Therefore the 24-pairs-chromosome apes became the
23-pairs-chromosome modern human beings by way of saltation.
请读者注意，骤变（Saltation ：Jumping
and discontinuous changes)是和突变（Mutation）绝对不同的。人类每产生一代，在新一代人身上，DNA总有极少数量的变化，叫突变。而骤变则是一次性发生了大量DNA的变化。
The readers should note that saltation ( i.e. jumping and
discontinuous changes), is quite different from mutation. Every new
generation of human beings will have exceedingly small changes DNA known as mutation whereas
saltation means numerous DNA changes at one tome.
“骤变论”或“骤变产生新物种的理论”已经被遗弃了一百多年。作为和进化论对立的“骤变论”，有人重新拿来挽救进化论，仍然是无济于事的。而且，正如前面三节所论述的那样，“骤变论”同样是建立在沙滩上的理论。
The “Theory of Saltation” or the “Theory of New Species
Generated by Saltation” was abandoned over one hundred years ago. The “Theory of Saltation” in
opposition to the Theory of Evolution is used by some people trying to save the Theory of
Evolution in vain. In addition, as described in the above three parts, the “Theory of Saltation” is also a
theory built on sandy foundation.
由于时间太久了，人们、包括现在提出“骤变论”的那些现代科学家们，他们可能忘记了“骤变论”和进化论的对立和区别，我们有必要进行一个回顾。
Due to the long time span, people including the modern
scientists who propose the
“Theory of Saltation” may forget the opposition and difference
between the “Theory of Saltation” and the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, it is necessary for us to review
this topic.
1. 米瓦特 VS.达尔文
1. St. George Jackson
Mivart vs. Charles Robert Darwin
人们都知道达尔文，却不一定知道米瓦特，在达尔文的时代，米瓦特和达尔文有着同样的知名度。米瓦特（St. George Jackson Mivart ，30 November 1827 – 1 April 1900)是当时一位著名的生物学家，也是一位天主教教徒。
Darwin
is well known, but Mivart is a
stranger to many people. During Darwin’s
time, Mivart and Darwin had equal reputation. St. George Jackson Mivart (30 November 1827 – 1 April 1900)
was a well-known biologist and a Catholic.
米瓦特认为，物种的形成是骤然的、急变的，没有过渡的形式。他搜集了大批材料反对以逐渐过渡方式产生新器官的渐变观点。1871年，米瓦特出版了他的著作“On the
Genesis of Species”，在书中，他详细表达了他的观点。因此，他和达尔文之间的论战被进一步升级。达尔文在《物种起源》的最后一版（1872年版）中用相当的篇幅反驳了米瓦特的观点。仅在第七章中，就有30处提到米瓦特的观点，并加以驳斥。其中几个主要的内容摘录如下：
Mivart believes that generation of species is sudden and
abrupt without any transition. He collected a great deal of material to
oppose the view of gradual change that new organs are generated by gradual
transformation. In 1871, Mivart published his works including On the Genesis of Species, to express his opinions in
detail. As a result, the debate between him and Darwin was escalated. In
the last version (1872) of Origin of Species, Darwin refuted opinions expressed by
Mivart in great details. Just in Chapter Seven among others, the opinions
expressed by Mivart are mentioned and refuted at 30 places. Excerpts from
several key passages are shown below:
“米瓦特先生相信物种是通过‘内在的力量或倾向’而变化的，这种内在的力量究竟是什么，实在全无所知。”
米伐特先生进而相信新种“是突然出现的，而且是由突然变异而成”，还有一些博物学者附和他的这种观点。例如，他假定已经绝灭了的三趾马 （Hipparion）和马之间的差异是突然发生的。他认为，鸟类的翘膀“除了由于具有显著而重要性质的、比较突然的变异而发展起来的以外，其他方法都是 难于相信的”；并且显然他把这种观点推广到蝙蝠和翼手龙（pterodactyles）的翅膀。这意味着进化系列里存在着巨大的断裂或不连续性，这结论， 依我看来，是极端不可能的。
Mr. Mivart believed that
species change through "an internal force or tendency," about
which nothing is known.
Mr. Mivart is further inclined to believe, and some
naturalists agree with him, that new species manifest themselves "with
suddenness and by modifications appearing at once." For instance, he
hypothesized that the differences between the extinct three-toed Hipparion
and the horse arose suddenly. He thought it difficult to believe that the
wing of a bird "was developed in any other way than by a comparatively
sudden modification of a marked and important kind". Apparently, he
would extend the same view to the wings of bats and pterodactyles. This
conclusion, which implies huge breaks or discontinuity in the evolutionary
series, appears to me most improbable.
达尔文说：“自然选择的理论，我们可以清楚地理解为什么她不应该;自然选择只能通过利用轻微的连续变化的行动;她永远不能拿一个飞跃，但必须以最短和最慢的步骤前进。”
Darwin said: “On the theory of natural
selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural
selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations;
she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest
steps.”
如果您读过这些内容以后，您还会认为“骤变论”也是属于达尔文进化论的范畴吗？
Do you still believe that the “Theory of Saltation” is within
the realm of Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution after reading the above arguments?
1.
米瓦特的遭遇：
2.
Mivart’s Fate
什么是米瓦特所说
的‘内在的力量或倾向’呢？作为一位天主教教徒，这里，他很可能是想隐含着“神的力量”。只要有“神的力量”，就会使一个物种瞬间地转化为另一个物种。他 的这种看法，不但被达尔文所否定，天主教教会也是否定的。因为按照圣经的教导是：物种“各从其类”，并不存在一个物种向另外一个物种转化，米瓦特两边都不 讨好。
What is the ‘inherent power or orientation’ proposed by
Mivart? Being a Catholic, he might want to invoke the “power of God”. By
“power of God”, a species can be instantly transformed to another. His view
was refuted by not only by Darwin but also the Catholic Church. According
to the teaching in the Bible, each species is formed “according to its kind” without
transformation from one to the
another. As a result, Mivart’s view was not favored by neither side.
美国著名的哲学家David Lee Hull （1935年6月15日- 2010年8月11日）曾经在他的书中“Darwin and His Critics”，这样评价米瓦特：“他被达尔文和他的同事们排除在科学界之外。米瓦特试图去调和科学和天主教的信仰，最终却导致被双方所驱逐。”
David Lee Hull, the well-known U.S. philosopher (June 15, 1936
– August 11, 2010), evaluated
Mivart’s view in his book, Darwin and His Critics:” Just as Mivart
was being excommunicated from the Catholic Church because of his article on
[the possibility of] happiness in hell, he was being excluded from the
scientific community by Darwin and his associates. In the end, Mivart's
attempts to reconcile science and the Catholic Church led him to be
excommunicated from both.”
1900年元月，当时的英国罗马天主教教会的主教Herbert
Alfred Vaughan （1832–1903）向米瓦特发出了停止教权的禁令，禁止他参加所有圣事活动。因此，在米瓦特1900年4月去世后，无法按天主教的仪式举行葬礼，也不能在教会的墓地下葬。经过他的朋友们长期抗争，终于在他去世3年多后，在1904年1月18日，才被安葬在天主教的墓地。
In January 1900, Bishop Herbert Alfred Vaughan of the British
Roman Catholic Church (1832-1903) banned Mivart from all the rights of a
Catholic and participation in all religious sacraments. As a result, after
his death in April 1900, Mivart was not entitled to burial with the
catholic ritual nor buried in the graveyard of the Catholic church.
Finally, he was allowed to be buried in the catholic graveyard on January
18, 1904( i.e. over 3 years after his death) after a long fight by his
friends.
2.
幸运的现代米瓦特
3.
Lucky modern “Mivart”
在现代，有些学者为了挽救进化论，寻找出一种理论：认为24对染色体的猿，因为他们的12号染色体和13号染色体的融合，变异出了23对染色体的人。这显然是一个“骤变论”产生人的理论。现在，这个理论的代表人物，是“上帝的语言”一书的作者：柯林斯先生。
In modern times, some scholars found another theory to rescue
the bankrupted Theory of Evolution. This theory advocates that the 24-pair-chromosome apes mutated
to the 23-pair-chromosome human beings through the fusion of No. 12 and No.
13 chromosomes. It is a theory which obviously believes that human beings
were generated by “the Theory of Saltation.” Now, the modern “Mivart” of
this theory is Dr. Collins, the author of Language of God.
从他的书中我们看到，他是一位基督徒。对比当年的米瓦特，他们太相像了，他们都想去调和科学与他们信仰之间的矛盾。只是他比米瓦特幸运多了，他不但没有被宗教所迫害，还被教皇任命为科学院院士。
From his book, we know that he is a Christian. He is very much
like Mivart in that both of them want to reconcile the conflict between
science and religious belief. More lucky than Mivart, he was not only free
from the persecution of religion but also appointed as a member of the Academy of Sciences.
柯林斯先生虽然是 一位有才华的分子医学专家，但是，看来他并没有多少达尔文进化论的知识，使他无法分辨进化论和骤变论的区别。在他的“上帝的语言”一书中，他从科学上解释
说，人是从比黑猩猩更原始的猿，由于“骤变”成为了人，这完全是米瓦特的骤变论。然而，他却说他的研究“若是没有达尔文理论作为基础，就无法将基因组研究如此之多的数据互相联系起来”。（英文：it
is almost impossible to imagine correlating the vast amounts
of data coming forth from the studies of genomes without the foundations of
Darwin’s theory” ）相信他只要认真的阅
读一遍“物种起源”的第七章，就一定会知道自己的误解。
Although a talented expert in molecular medicine, Dr. Collins
seems to have little knowledge of Theory of Evolution since he is unable to
distinguish between the Theory of Evolution from the Theory of Saltation.
In his book, Language of God, he gave the scientific explanation that human
beings were generated by “saltation” from apes more primitive than
chimpanzees. This view is exactly the same as the Theory of Saltation of
Mivart. However, he said “it is almost impossible to imagine correlating
the vast amounts of data coming forth from the studies of
genomes without the foundations of Darwin’s theory”. It is believed
that he must understand his misunderstanding by seriously reading Chapter
VII of Origin of Species.
四．“骤变人表型正常”是骤变论的“死穴”
IV.
Normal phenotype of human beings generated by “Saltation” is the Achilles'
heel of the“Theory of Saltation”
1.
骤变不能产生新的人类种群
1. Saltation cannot generate new human races
从现在的科学来看，米瓦特反对进化论的意见是对的，因为染色体对数和DNA编码的一些发现，否定了渐变、微变、群体性进化为基础的达尔文进化论，否定了按照这样方式产生人类的可能性。
According
to the modern science, Mivart was justified in opposing the Theory of
Evolution because the findings of chromosome pair numbers and DNA codes
refute Darwin’s Theory of Evolution which is based on the notion of gradual
change, microvariation and population
evolution and deny the possibility of generating human beings according
to these means.
当然，同样从现在的科学来看，达尔文反对骤变论的意见也是对的。因为从染色体和DNA编码所发现的秘密，也否定了以骤变产生新物种的米瓦特的理论。
Certainly,
according to the existing science, Darwin’s views are also justified in
opposing the Theory of Saltation, because the secrets revealed by
chromosomes and DNA codes also refute Mivart’s theory that new species are
generated by saltation.
总之，在科学上，他们都是错误的。
In
sum, scientifically, both of them are wrong.
分子生物学和生物医学的研究表明，人类的身体特征和猿类、黑猩猩不同，不仅仅是染色体对数的差别，也在于各个染色体DNA序列的差别。这种差别包含染色体长度差别、基因种类和数量的差别等等。对于那些在人和黑猩猩身上类似的一些基因，经过仔细地DNA序列对比，有很大的差异。例如，人类的21号染色体与黑猩猩“83%基因有差异”，“20%基因有显着的差异”（参看第8节）。
Both
the biological and biomedical researches show that human physical features
are different from those of apes and chimpanzees in not only in chromosome
pairs but also in all DNA sequences. The differences cover chromosome
length, gene types, quantity, etc. For those similar genes in both human
beings and chimpanzees, significant differences have been identified
carefully by DNA sequences. For example, “83% of genes” are different” and
“20% of genes are significantly different on No. 21 chromosome between
human beings and chimpanzees (See Part 8).
即使在一次受孕中，两个染色体有可能发生融合，也不可能同时发生其它22条染色体DNA长 度、基因数量和种类大的改变，更不可能产生猿类没有的、人类的新基因（如有关语言的基因）。而且不可能在精子和卵子两者所有的染色体之中，同时发生同样的 骤变，结合产生出现代人这个新物种。人类和黑猩猩在“非物质遗传信息”上也存在巨大的差异，不可能是“丢弃”两段染色体，人就具有了人类独有的智慧、艺术 等等“非物质遗传信息”。
Even
if two chromosomes have fused in a pregnancy, the other 22 chromosomes’ DNA
length, gene number and gene types cannot significantly change at the same
time let alone the generation of new human genes unavailable to apes (i.e.
genes about language). In addition, all chromosomes in sperms and eggs
cannot have simultaneous and identical saltation to merge and generate new
species. Huge differences exist in nonphysical genetic information between
human beings and chimpanzees. It is impossible that by “deleting” two
pieces of chromosomes, human beings acquire human wisdom, artistic and
other nonphysical genetic information which belong to man and man only.
骤变论者常常借由人类的罗伯逊易位病来解释染色体的融合，但是，从来没有哪一个罗伯逊易位病的病例，在所有的染色体上，同时都发生了大的改变。
The
Saltationists often quote human Robertsonian translocation disease to
explain the fusion of chromosomes. However, there is not one case of
Robertsonian translocation disease which demonstrates simultaneous and
significant change in all the chromosomes.
总之，一对混身是毛的猿类，不可能因骤变生出一个现代人这样的婴儿。不可能通过骤变，在一个猿类群体中，产生出“常染色体”DNA编码序列完全一致的男婴和女婴。更不可能在男婴和女婴的2号染色体上，融合出完全相同的第一标记：789个DNA编码序列，而且其起始点相同（参看第6节图6-1）。
In
sum, a couple of hairy apes cannot generate a modern human baby. It is
impossible that through saltation an ape population generates a male baby
and a female baby with exactly the same “autosome” DNA coding sequences. It
is even more impossible that No. 2 chromosomes of the two babies are fused
to form exactly the same first marker ( i.e. 789 DNA coding sequences) with
the same starting point (See Figure 6-1 of Part 6).
即使产生了两个这样的男人和女人，他们又能配对结婚，也不可能发展出新的人类种群。
Even
if such man and woman were generated, they cannot be matched in matrimony
let alone develop into a new human race.
2.
22对染色体的人不可能取代70亿23对染色体的现代人
2. 22-pair-chromosomes human
beings cannot replace the 7 billion 23-pair-chromosome modern human beings
为什么说上述的骤变，不可能发展出新的人类种群呢？让我们来看一下现代人类中的一个特别情况。
Why
did we say that the aforementioned saltation cannot develop into a new
human race? Let us examine a special case from modern human beings.
在7节中，我们知道现在有生活着的22对染色体的人。但是可以肯定，22对染色体的人不可能发展成新的族群，更不可能在多少万年以后，23对染色体的70亿人全部不见了，只剩下22对染色体的人。
Part 7 shows that 22-pair-chromosome human
beings exist in modern times. However, we can be sure that the
22-pair-chromosome human beings cannot develop into a new race. It is even
more impossible that thousands of years later, the 23-pair-chromosomes
human beings are completely replaced by the 22-pair-chromosomes human
beings.
以2010年，在中国中部发现的那位22对染色体的男子为例，他的“表型正常”[注释2]，他从外表来看与普通人没有什么区别，因此才会与一位普通的女士结婚。当然，他只能生出无法存活的病态子女。即使他们的子女存活下来，也只会是22.5对（45条）染色体的病人，同样无法延续后代。
In 2010, a 22-pair-chromosome man was found in Central China. He has normal phenotype with no
difference in appearance from a normal person, so he was married to a
normal woman. Certainly, he could only give birth to sickly children unable
to survive. Even if their children could survive, they would be patients of
22.5 pairs (or 45 pieces) of chromosomes, also unable to breed offsrings.
我们假定他是一位亿万富翁的男子，如果他想得到一个能继承他财富的儿子，并且要求这个儿子有正常的生育能力，那么唯一的可能是他必须寻找一位22对染色体的妻子，去生一个22对染色体的儿子。我们设想，如果他在“纽约时报”上刊登一个广告时，他会征集得到这样的妻子吗？几乎可以肯定地回答：不能。
Suppose he was a rich
man with billions of dollars and wanted to acquire a son with normal reproductive
ability to inherit his wealth, the only possibility is that he has to find
a 22-pair-chromosomes wife to give birth to a 22-pair-chromosome son.
Imagine whether he can recruit such a wife by putting an advertisement in
the New York Times. Our answer is a definitive: No.
因为目前从1970年到现在，只发现了10个22对染色体的人。而近20年来，许多国家都有了胎儿染色体检查，发现22对染色体的人并不是很难。因此22对染色体的总人口，估计不会超过普通人口的500万分之一，在全世界这样病态的人不超过1,400人。
Since 1970, we found
only 10 people with 22 pairs of chromosomes. During the recent 20 years, many
countries have performed
chromosome examination
from embryos, with which it should
not be difficult to find
people with 22 pairs of chromosomes and yet we found 10 only . As a result,
the total 22-pair-chromosomes population cannot be more than one part in five million of normal population,
and such sickly individuals cannot be more than 1,400.
考虑男女比例、年龄等因素，即使有愿意应征的女子，她能符合要求的可能性要小于3千万分之一。这比中一个大奖的可能性还要低，而她还要花费远比彩票贵几百倍的染色体检测费用，这会有多少女士应征呢？因此，他肯定征集不到22对染色体的妻子。
Consider the gender
ratio, age and other factors, the probability of meeting such requirement
in women willing to be recruited are less than one part in thirty thousand. This probability is even lower than
winning mega million lottery. How many women are willing to be recruited
considering the chromosome test expenses which are hundreds of times higher
than those of buying a lottery? Therefore, the gentleman in question is
unable to recruit the 22-pair-chromosomes wife.
即使他成功了，他的儿子、孙子等等后裔，都要面临这样的问题。由此看到，形成22对染色体人的族群是不可能的，他们只是患“染色体病”的病人。
更无法想象现在仅仅几百上千的22对染色体的人，会取代70亿23对染色体的现代人。
Even if he succeeded,
his son, grandson and other offsprings will face the same problem. As a
result, it is impossible to create a 22-pair-chromosomes race. They are
nothing but patients of “chromosome disease”. It is even more unimaginable
that only hundreds or thousands of 22-pair-chromosomes individuals can
replace the 7 billion 23-pair-chromosomes modern human beings.
3.23对染色体的人不可能取代24对染色体的类人猿
3. 23-pair-chromosome
human beings cannot replace 24-pair-chromosome man apes
以上述同样的道理分析，23对染色体的现代人，也不可能取代24对染色体的类人猿。
If
analyzed by similar reasoning of the above, it is impossible for the
23-pair-chromosomes modern human beings to be replaced by the
24-pair-chromosomes man apes.
重要的是：骤变出来的人和没有骤变的人，看起来没有区别，在医学上叫“表型正常”。“表型正常”是骤变论的“死穴”，因为骤变出来的人无法区分自己的群体，无法保证只在本群体内进行交配。如果不是“表型正常”婴儿，则必将不能存活。
It
is important that the no difference exists between the saltated human
beings and the unsaltated human beings, medically known as “normal
phenotype”. “Normal phenotype” is the Achilles' heel of the Theory of
Saltation. For the saltated human beings cannot be distinguished from those
in their race, they cannot guarantee to mate within their own race. If he
is not a baby with “normal phenotype”, it cannot survive.
对于现代人，在50年以前没有染色体的鉴定，谁也不知道自己有多少对染色体。任何22对染色体的人，都不会知道为什么自己没有儿孙，更不可能去寻找同样染色体对数的人结婚。
Without
chromosome testing 50 years ago, no modern men and women knew then how many
pairs of chromosome they have. Any 22-pair-chromosomes person could not understand
why they are childless, let alone trying to find a person in the opposite
sex withi the same chromosome pairs to marry.
在20几万年前，情况更是如此。即使非常非常偶然地产生出一男、一女的人类，怎样在成千成万
“未骤变的24对染色体人类”的群体中，去寻找自己相同的23对染色体配偶呢？正像22对染色体的人和23对染色体的人，在外表上没有多大差别（“表型正常”），如果现代人是骤变来的，骤变前的父母与骤变后的子女，在形体上不应该有大的区别。
Over
200,000 years ago, the conditions were worse. Even if a man and a woman
were generated by a rare chance, how could they find their spouses with the
same 23 pairs of chromosomes among the unsaltated 24-pair-chromosomes human
beings? As the 22-pair-chromosomes human beings and the 23-pair-chromosome
human beings have no significant difference in appearance from each other
(i.e. “normal phenotype”), if modern human beings were saltated, the
parents before saltation and their children after saltation should not be
significantly different in appearance.
因此骤变前后的人不能分辨自己与原群体人的区别。只要有一个23对染色体的人与24对染色体的猿人结婚，就少了一个遗传23对人后裔的可能性。可以看到，即使从24对染色体的类人猿中，产生了一对23对染色体的人，几代、几十代后一定会湮灭。
As a result, the human
beings before and after saltation could not distinguish themselves from the
original population. With every marriage of 23-pair-chromosome human being
to a 24-pair-chromosome human being, the probability is lessened to produce
a 23-pair-chromosomes offspring. Therefore, even if a couple with
23-pair-chromosome human beings are generated from the 24-pair-chromosome
man apes, they will become extinct generations later.
如果现代人是从24对染色体类人猿骤变而成，那些24对染色体的类人猿一定比黑猩猩更“先进”一些。黑猩猩在不久以前，还有几百万个。如果那些类人猿曾经存在过，他们为何全部消失了？
If modern human beings
developed from 24-pair-chromosome man apes through saltation, the
24-pair-chromosome man apes must be more advanced than chimpanzees. Not
long ago, millions of chimpanzees have existed. If the man apes once
existed, why did they all disappeared?
另外，全世界人都是一位男子的后裔，这个结论也否定了“骤变形成人”的理论。结论是：现代人不可能是由类人猿骤变产生的。
In addition, the theory
of “human being generation by saltation” is also refuted by the conclusion
that all human beings in the world are offsprings of one man. Our final
conclusion is this: Modern human beings cannot be generated from man apes.
以上的推论仅仅是为了说明骤变论是错误的设想，事实上，染色体的变异仅仅是产生出了染色体病人，他们不可能正常地繁衍后代，更不可能形成新的人种。
|