0:15
Well, this is 2009. And it's the Bicentenary of Charles Darwin. And all over the world, eminent evolutionists are anxious to celebrate this. And what they're planning to do is to enlighten us on almost every aspect of Darwin and his life, and how he changed our thinking. I say almost every aspect, because there is one aspect of this story which they have thrown no light on. And they seem anxious to skirt around it and step over it and to talk about something else. So I'm going to talk about it. It's the question of, why are we so different from the chimpanzees?
1:02
We get the geneticists keeping on telling us how extremely closely we are related -- hardly any genes of difference, very, very closely related. And yet, when you look at the phenotypes, there's a chimp, there's a man; they're astoundingly different, no resemblance at all. I'm not talking about airy-fairy stuff about culture or psychology, or behavior. I'm talking about ground-base, nitty-gritty, measurable physical differences. They, that one, is hairy and walking on four legs. That one is a naked biped. Why? I mean -- (Laughter) if I'm a good Darwinist, I've got to believe there's a reason for that. If we changed so much, something must have happened. What happened?
1:51
Now 50 years ago, that was a laughably simple question. Everybody knew the answer. They knew what happened. The ancestor of the apes stayed in the trees; our ancestors went out onto the plain. That explained everything. We had to get up on our legs to peer over the tall grass, or to chase after animals, or to free our hands for weapons. And we got so overheated in the chase that we had to take off that fur coat and throw it away. Everybody knew that, for generations.
2:24
But then, in the '90s, something began to unravel. The paleontologists themselves looked a bit more closely at the accompanying microfauna that lived in the same time and place as the hominids. And they weren't savanna species. And they looked at the herbivores. And they weren't savanna herbivores. And then they were so clever, they found a way to analyze fossilized pollen. Shock, horror. The fossilized pollen was not of savanna vegetation. Some of it even came from lianas, those things that dangle in the middle of the jungle.
3:04
So we're left with a situation where we know that our earliest ancestors were moving around on four legs in the trees, before the savanna ecosystem even came into existence. This is not something I've made up. It's not a minority theory. Everybody agrees with it.
3:26
Professor Tobias came over from South Africa and spoke to University College London. He said, "Everything I've been telling you for the last 20 years, forget about it. It was wrong. We've got to go back to square one and start again." It made him very unpopular. They didn't want to go back to square one.
3:49
I mean, it's a terrible thing to happen. You've got this beautiful paradigm. You've believed it through generations. Nobody has questioned it. You've been constructing fanciful things on top of it, relying on it to be as solid as a rock. And now it's whipped away from under you. What do you do? What does a scientist do in that case?
4:10
Well, we know the answer because Thomas S. Kuhn wrote a seminal treatise about this back in 1962. He said what scientists do when a paradigm fails is, guess what -- they carry on as if nothing had happened. (Laughter) If they haven't got a paradigm they can't ask the question. So they say, "Yes it's wrong, but supposing it was right ..." (Laughter) And the only other option open to them is to stop asking the questions. So that is what they have done now. That's why you don't hear them talking about it. It's yesterday's question.
4:55
Some of them have even elevated it into a principle. It's what we ought to be doing. Aaron Filler from Harvard said, "Isn't it time we stopped talking about selective pressures? I mean, why don't we talk about, well, there's chromosomes, and there's genes. And we just record what we see." Charles Darwin must be spinning in his grave! He knew all about that kind of science. And he called it hypothesis-free science. And he despised it from the bottom of his heart. And if you're going to say, "I'm going to stop talking about selective pressures," you can take "The Origin of Species" and throw it out of the window, for it's about nothing else but selective pressures.
5:36
And the irony of it is, that this is one occasion of a paradigm collapse where we didn't have to wait for a new paradigm to come up. There was one waiting in the wings. It had been waiting there since 1960 when Alister Hardy, a marine biologist, said, "I think what happened, perhaps our ancestors had a more aquatic existence for some of the time." He kept it to himself for 30 years. But then the press got hold of it and all hell broke loose. All his colleagues said, "This is outrageous. You've exposed us to public ridicule! You must never do that again." And at that time, it became set in stone: the aquatic theory should be dumped with the UFOs and the yetis, as part of the lunatic fringe of science.
6:27
Well I don't think that. I think that Hardy had a lot going for him. I'd like to talk about just a handful of what have been called the hallmarks of mankind, the things that made us different from everybody else, and all our relatives. Let's look at our naked skin. It's obvious that most of the things we think about that have lost their body hair, mammals without body hair, are aquatic ones, like the dugong, the walrus, the dolphin, the hippopotamus, the manatee. And a couple of wallowers-in-mud like the babirusa. And you're tempted to think, well perhaps, could that be why we are naked?
7:11
I suggested it and people said, "No no no. I mean, look at the elephant. You've forgotten all about the elephant haven't you?" So back in 1982 I said, "Well perhaps the elephant had an aquatic ancestor." Peals of merry laughter! "That crazy woman. She's off again. She'll say anything won't she?" But by now, everybody agrees that the elephant had an aquatic ancestor. This has come 'round to be that all those naked pachyderms have aquatic ancestors. The last exception was supposed to be the rhinoceros.
7:42
Last year in Florida they found extinct ancestor of a rhinoceros and said, "Seems to have spent most of its time in the water." So this is a close connection between nakedness and water. As an absolute connection, it only works one way. You can't say all aquatic animals are naked, because look at the sea otter. But you can say that every animal that has become naked has been conditioned by water, in its own lifetime, or the lifetime of its ancestors. I think this is significant. The only exception is the naked Somalian mole-rat, which never puts its nose above the surface of the ground.
8:25
And take bipedality. Here you can't find anybody to compare it with, because we're the only animal that walks upright on two legs. But you can say this: all the apes and all the monkeys are capable of walking on two legs, if they want to, for a short time. There is only one circumstance in which they always, all of them, walk on two legs, and that is when they are wading through water. Do you think that's significant? David Attenborough thinks it's significant, as the possible beginning of our bipedalism.
8:59
Look at the fat layer. We have got, under our skin, a layer of fat, all over: nothing in the least like that in any other primate. Why should it be there? Well they do know, that if you look at other aquatic mammals, the fat that in most land mammals is deposited inside the body wall, around the kidneys and the intestines and so on, has started to migrate to the outside, and spread out in a layer inside the skin. In the whale it's complete: no fat inside at all, all in blubber outside. We cannot avoid the suspicion that in our case it's started to happen. We have got skin lined with this layer. It's the only possible explanation of why humans, if they're very unlucky, can become grossly obese, in a way that would be totally impossible for any other primate, physically impossible. Something very odd, matter-of-factly, never explained.
10:01
The question of why we can speak. We can speak. And the gorilla can't speak. Why? Nothing to do with his teeth or his tongue or his lungs or anything like that -- purely has to do with its conscious control of its breath. You can't even train a gorilla to say "Ah" on request. The only creatures that have got conscious control of their breath are the diving animals and the diving birds. It was an absolute precondition for our being able to speak.
10:35
And then again, there is the fact that we are streamlined. Trying to imagine a diver diving into water -- hardly makes a splash. Try to imagine a gorilla performing the same maneuver, and you can see that, compared with gorilla, we are halfway to being shaped like a fish. I am trying to suggest that, for 40-odd years, this aquatic idea has been miscategorized as lunatic fringe, and it is not lunatic fringe.
11:05
And the ironic thing about it is that they are not staving off the aquatic theory to protect a theory of their own, which they've all agreed on, and they love. There is nothing there. They are staving off the aquatic theory to protect a vacuum. (Laughter) (Applause)
11:29
How do they react when I say these things? One very common reaction I've heard about 20 times is, "But it was investigated. They conducted a serious investigation of this at the beginning, when Hardy put forward his article." I don't believe it. For 35 years I've been looking for any evidence of any incident of that kind, and I've concluded that that's one of the urban myths. It's never been done.
12:00
I ask people sometimes, and they say, "I like the aquatic theory! Everybody likes the aquatic theory. Of course they don't believe it, but they like it." Well I say, "Why do you think it's rubbish?" They say "Well ... everybody I talk to says it's rubbish. And they can't all be wrong, can they?" The answer to that, loud and clear, is, "Yes! They can all be wrong." History is strewn with the cases when they've all got it wrong. (Applause) And if you've got a scientific problem like that, you can't solve it by holding a head count, and saying, "More of us say yes than say no."
12:43
(Laughter)
12:44
Apart from that, some of the heads count more than others. Some of them have come over. There was Professor Tobias. He's come over. Daniel Dennett, he's come over. Sir David Attenborough, he's come over. Anybody else out there? Come on in. The water is lovely.
13:04
(Applause)
13:07
And now we've got to look to the future. Ultimately one of three things is going to happen. Either they will go on for the next 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. "Yeah well we don't talk about that. Let's talk about something interesting." That would be very sad. The second thing that could happen is that some young genius will arrive, and say, "I've found it. It was not the savanna, it was not the water, it was this!" No sign of that happening either. I don't think there is a third option.
13:42
So the third thing that might happen is a very beautiful thing. If you look back at the early years of the last century, there was a stand-off, a lot of bickering and bad feeling between the believers in Mendel, and the believers in Darwin. It ended with a new synthesis: Darwin's ideas and Mendel's ideas blending together. And I think the same thing will happen here. You'll get a new synthesis. Hardy's ideas and Darwin's ideas will be blended together.
14:18
And we can move forward from there, and really get somewhere. That would be a beautiful thing. It would be very nice for me if it happened soon. (Laughter) Because I'm older now than George Burns was when he said, "At my age, I don't even buy green bananas."
14:48
(Laughter)
14:54
So if it's going to come and it's going to happen, what's holding it up? I can tell you that in three words. Academia says no. They decided in 1960, "That belongs with the UFOs and the yetis." And it's not easy to change their minds. The professional journals won't touch it with a barge pole. The textbooks don't mention it. The syllabus doesn't mention even the fact that we're naked, let alone look for a reason to it. "Horizon," which takes its cue from the academics, won't touch it with a barge pole. So we never hear the case put for it, except in jocular references to people on the lunatic fringe.
15:42
I don't know quite where this diktat comes from. Somebody up there is issuing the commandment, "Thou shalt not believe in the aquatic theory. And if you hope to make progress in this profession, and you do believe it, you'd better keep it to yourself, because it will get in your way."
16:07
So I get the impression that some parts of the scientific establishment are morphing into a kind of priesthood. But you know, that makes me feel good, because Richard Dawkins has told us how to treat a priesthood. (Laughter) He says, "Firstly, you've got to refuse to give it all the excessive awe and reverence it's been trained to receive." Right. I'll go ahead with that. And secondly, he says, "You must never be afraid to rock the boat." I'll go along with that too. Thank you very much.
16:47
(Applause)
0:15
現在是2009年 查爾斯達爾文的兩百年紀念 世界各地著名的進化論者 都迫不及待想要大肆慶祝 他們想要啟發我們 去了解達爾文所有的 思想與人生 以及他如何改變我們的觀念 我說"幾乎"每一個面向 是因為當中有一個面向 他們並沒有提到 他們似乎急著走避和略過 去談其他的事情 所以我決定來談一談 那問題就是：為何我們跟黑猩猩如此不同？
1:02
基因學家不斷告訴我們 人類和黑猩猩有多麼相像，基因幾乎一模一樣 是非常非常相近的物種 可是當你觀察外顯型時 一邊是黑猩猩 一邊是人類 兩者的差異令人震驚 完全沒有相似之處 我不是在談不切實際的東西 如文化或心理或行為 而是基本關鍵的 外表差異 牠們，那一群 是多毛且用四腳走路 另一群則是赤裸的兩足動物，為什麼？ 我是指 （笑聲） 如果我是個虔誠的達爾文主義者 我就要相信 此事必有因 一定是發生了什麼事，讓我們的改變這麼大 究竟發生了什麼事呢?
1:51
五十年前，這是個可笑的簡單問題 人人都知道答案 他們知道發生了什麼事 人猿的祖先留在樹上 我們的祖先則移向平原 這解釋了一切 我們必須站立才能看過高草原 或追逐動物 或者張開手好握住武器 而在打獵中因為過熱 我們必須丟掉身上的厚毛 好幾世代的人都知道這個演化過程
2:24
可是到了90年代，有些事情開始浮現 古生物學家更仔細地研究 一些伴隨型的微型動物 他們和原始人類生長在同一個時間，同一個地點 但發現他們並非熱帶草原的物種 古生物學家研究草食動物,發現他們不是大草原的草食動物 接著聰明的學者發現一個方法，他們去分析 花粉的化石 震驚，且難以置信 那些花粉化石並不是大草原的植物 有些甚至來自藤蔓植物 那些懸盪在叢林裡的植物
3:04
現在面對的狀況是 我們知道自己最早的祖先 用四腳走動 住在樹上 早在大草原生態形成之前就如此了 這不是我捏造的故事 這不是少數理論 而是每個人都認同的
3:26
南非教受托比亞斯 他到英國大學演講 他說：過去20年來我所告訴過你們的事 都忘掉吧 全是錯的 我們必須回到一壘 從頭開始 這讓他遭到排斥 因為大家都不想從頭開始
3:49
這是件令人難過的事 眼前有個很好的典範 好幾世代以來都一直相信著 大家都如此深信 你在上面蓋了許多奇異的東西 期望它就像石頭一樣堅實 現在這基礎卻從你底下被抽離了 你該怎麼辦？這時候科學家該怎麼做呢？
4:10
其實我們知道答案 因為湯姆士.孔恩 寫了一篇相關的開創性論文 在1962年 他說：科學家們要如何面對 一個典範的殞落呢？ 猜他怎麼說？他說：就當一切都沒有發生過吧 （笑聲） 如果科學家沒有典範就無法做學問 於是他們就說：這是錯的 但萬一它是對的呢？ （笑聲） 另外唯一的選擇就是 停止探討所有的問題 這正是他們現在所做的 這是你現在聽不到大家討論水猿理論的原因，
4:55
有些科學家甚至將這問題變成一種信念 一件我們都該遵照的事 哈佛大學的菲勒博士曾說過： 我們是否該停止討論選擇壓力了呢？ 我是指：為何不從染色體和基因來討論 看到什麼就說什麼 查爾斯達爾文一定氣得在墳墓裡跳腳 他對那種科學再清楚不過 他稱之為「無假設科學」 達爾文打從心底鄙視這種科學 如果你想說 「我要開始停止討論選擇壓力」 那你大可把「物種原始」丟出窗外了 因為那整本書都在談選擇壓力
5:36
諷刺的是 這次典範的殞落 並不需要等待新的典範出現才發生 其實早有另一典範準備取代 自1960年就開始等著了 海洋生物學家哈帝爵士當時曾說： 我想原因是 也許我們的祖先 有更長的時間 生活在水裡 他把這想法藏了三十年 可是最後被媒體揭露，搞得天翻地覆 他所有的同事都認為：這簡直駭人聽聞 你讓我們全成了眾人的笑話！ 你以後永遠不准再犯 在當時這理論被判了死刑 水猿理論應該跟 幽浮和雪人一起 被當作瘋狂的邊緣科學被丟掉
6:27
但我可不這麼想 我認為哈帝有許多有力的說法 我想談談少數幾個 被稱為 人類正字標記的特徵 和其他動物 以及近親動物不同的地方 先來看我們赤裸的皮膚 很明顯的，大多數我們想到的 無體毛的哺乳類動物 都是水生動物，比如像：儒艮 海象 海豚 河馬 海牛 還有一兩個在泥中打滾的動物 如鹿豬 你不禁會想 也許這就是 我們赤裸的原因
7:11
我如此表明 別人就會說：不 不 不 看看大象 難道你忘了大象嗎？ 1982年的時候我回答： 也許大象的祖先也是水生動物啊 這回答引來一陣陣的笑聲！ 「那瘋女人！她又錯亂了！老是胡言亂語…」 但是現在，每個人都認同大象有個水生動物的祖先 所有赤裸的厚皮動物的祖先 都是水生動物 排名最後的是犀牛
7:42
去年在佛羅里達發現了犀牛已絕種的祖先 那些人說：看來似乎大部分的時間都生活在水裡 所以這就是赤裸皮膚與水之間的密切關聯 這種絕對關係是單向的 你不能說所有水生動物都是赤裸的 看看海獺就會明白 不過你可以說 所有赤裸的動物 牠或牠祖先的生命都跟水有關係 我認為這具有重大意義 只有索馬利亞鼴鼠例外 牠的鼻子從不超出地面
8:25
看看用兩腳行動 你無法找到與人類相媲美的動物 因為我們是唯一以兩隻腳挺立行走的動物 但是你可以說 所有的黑猩猩和猴子也能用兩隻腳走路 如果牠們願意的話 但只是暫時的 只有一種情況 會讓牠們全部一直用兩腳走路 就是費力走過水的時候 你覺得這有意義嗎？ 大衛艾登堡認為很有意義 因為這有可能就是兩足類的原始
8:59
看看體脂肪 我們全身的皮膚底下都鋪著厚厚一層的脂肪 其他靈長類動物是沒有的 為什麼我們會有皮下脂肪呢 專家知道如果你觀察其他水生哺乳類動物 一般陸上動物的脂肪 都囤積在體內的體壁上 在腎臟和大小腸周圍等等 水生哺乳類的脂肪則轉移到體壁外 分散成皮膚內的脂肪層 鯨魚是進化完整的 體內毫無脂肪 全是體外的鯨脂 我們不得不去懷疑 人類才正開始這樣的演化 所以皮膚下才有脂肪層 這是唯一能夠解釋為何人類 如果不幸 就會變得極度肥胖 這是其他靈長類在體型上根本不會發生的事 有些從未獲得解釋的奇怪現象
10:01
關於我們為何會說話的問題 我們會說話 為什麼大猩猩不會說話？ 跟牠的牙齒或舌頭或肺部等等都無關 而是跟有意識的控制呼吸有關係 你甚至無法訓練及要求大猩猩說「啊」 唯一能夠有意識地控制呼吸的生物 就是潛水型的動物和鳥類 控制呼吸是我們會說話的絕對性先決條件
10:35
還有事實上我們是流線型的 試想潛水者潛入水中 幾乎不激起任何水花 試想大猩猩 做出一樣的動作 你將會發現，和大猩猩比起來 我們有一半的肢體就像魚一樣 我想提出的是 在過去四十多年來 這個水猿理論一直被誤歸類為瘋狂的邊緣科學 實際上並非如此
11:05
諷刺的是 人們並不是擊退水猿理論 來維護他們自己所認同 而且熱愛的理論 根本就沒有其他理論存在 他們避開水猿理論 只為了維護一片空白 （笑聲） （鼓掌）
11:29
我談水猿理論時他們有何反應呢？ 一個我已經聽過20次的普遍反應是： 「已經有人調查過了」 當哈帝公開他的論文時 他們徹底地對這理論進行過研究過了 我不相信 35年來我一直在尋找 類似的調查證據 我的結論是：這是現代的迷思之一 哈帝的理論從來就沒有調查
12:00
有時候我會問人 他們就說： 我喜歡水猿理論！ 每個人都喜歡水猿理論 當然他們不會相信 可是卻會喜歡 我又問：為什麼你認為那是胡說呢？ 他們回答：嗯….. 因為其他人都這麼說啊 而且他們不可能全都錯吧？ 那答案再明顯不過：沒錯 他們可能全都錯了！ 歷史上到處都有我們全都錯了的實例 （鼓掌） 如果你面對一個像這樣的科學問題 你不能用數人頭來解決 然後說：你看 大多數都同意啊
12:43
（笑聲）
12:44
除此之外 有些人頭比其他人重要 有些人則改變立場 像是托比亞斯教授就認同了水猿理論 丹尼爾丹奈特認同了 大衛艾登堡也認同了 還有沒有人？都過來吧 水是非常迷人的
13:04
（鼓掌）
13:07
接著我們必須看向未來 到最後 以下三種情況之中，有一種可能會發生 第一是人們在未來40 50 或60年會繼續說： 我們不討論那個 來討論更有趣的話題吧 這將令人非常難過 第二個可能發生的是 有些年輕的天才會出現 然後說：我找到了！ 不是大草原 也不是水 而是這個！ 但看不到這個可能發生的跡象 我不認為還有第三種理論
13:42
第三個可能發生的情況 則是一樁美事 如果你回溯到上個世紀初期 總有僵持的局面 爭吵和彼此反感 存在於孟德爾信徒 與達爾文信徒之間 一個新綜合理論平息了爭執 將達爾文與孟德爾的思想 結合在一起 而我認為同樣的結果將會發生 大家將會得到一個全新綜合的理論 哈帝與達爾文的理論 將會被結合在一起
14:18
接著我們就可以從新理論出發 真正到達某個目的地 那將會很美好 如果這快點實現 對我來說將會很美好 （笑聲） 因為我現在比喬治伯恩斯說出這句話時還老 他說：到我這把年紀 都不敢買青香蕉了
14:48
（笑聲）
14:54
如果這日子就要到來 就快成真 是什麼阻礙了它呢？ 我可以用五個字回答你們： 學術界說不 學術界在1960年決定 「水猿理論就跟幽浮和雪人一樣」 要改變他們的觀念是困難的 專業刊物 不想與它有關連 教科書不會提到它 課程大綱甚至不提及我們是赤裸的事實 更不用提背後的原因了 Horizon雜誌由學術界主導 也不想與水猿理論有任何瓜葛 所以我們從來聽不到任何關於水猿理論的資訊 除了拿來消遣 科學狂熱份子的時候才會出現
15:42
我不太確定這定見來自何處 某個高高在上的人 正在發出聖誡： 汝等不可採信「水猿理論」 如果你期許在這行做出成績 而且又相信「水猿理論」的話，你最好保持緘默 因為它將會阻擾你的前程
16:07
所以我感覺到 科學組織的某些部分 已經轉型成神職 但是你知道嗎 這讓我覺得很好 因為李察道金斯告訴過我們 如何對付神職人員 （笑聲） 他說：首先你必須拒絕過度的的敬畏 因為宗教一直以來 就被訓練獲得過度的敬畏與崇拜 很好 這我認同 接著他又說： 你必需勇於打破現狀 我也同意這說法 謝謝大家
16:47
（鼓掌）
沒有留言:
張貼留言