Comments by "nunca789" (@nunca789) on "Liberty Vault"
channel.
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your comment starts (item 1) with asserting all life does share a common ancestor as though it were true -- it is so far from being true, it is painful to read someone proclaiming it as true. The origin of life researchers pretty much agree that DNA and RNA had to pre-exist before any life forms -- and there is no explanation of how DNA and/or RNA were built by random associations of inert chemicals in a hostile environment. There is no explanation for how a so-called primitive life form could be accidentally damaged enough times to become a complex system of integrated subsystems as appears in every cell not to mention every living plant and animal.
As the modern synthesis can't explain how new species with new features and functions came to exist by lucky accidents, it surely has not proved that all life forms came from a common ancestor.
Moreover, the modern synthesis is utterly incapable of explaining the origin and development of the software in organisms to allow them to use whatever new feature, limb, or function they get by the series of accidents called mutation. Evolution cannot be said to be a proven fact if it is incapable of explaining the biological operational software needed for every significant change.
Atheist Thomas Nagel, in Mind and Cosmos, demolished the idea that human mind functions came via the modern synthesis. Kevin Miller's 2018 book, the Human Instinct, utterly fails to save the evolution theory despite his attempting to do so. Humans did not evolve their minds from "lower" species.
The appeal to transitional fossils (item 2) fails to reveal any mechanism of the modern synthesis. It also fails to explain the origin, development, and timely modification of biological operational software.
1
-
My bad - the author is Kenneth Miller, not Kevin. He is a biologist. The book, The Human Instinct, is therefore by a book by a biologist.
I appreciate the collegial tone of your post. The post doesn't refute my comment's challenges except to distinguish abiogenesis.
I've taken your suggestion already to read professionals in the bio sciences: Dr. Glicksman, MD, Douglas Axe, PhD, Geoffrey Simmons, MD, Jonathan Wells, PhD, Ann Gauger, PhD, Giuseppe Sermonti, PhD, Marcos Eberlin, PhD... as well as other scientists.
1
-
@ensifolium Your post says that we cannot trust books about evolution because anybody can say anything in a book. Thus, your post contends all of these books are not trustworthy sources of information about evolution: Kenneth Miller’s book, The Human Instinct; Bill Nye’s book, Evolution; Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s favorites including: Donald Prothero’s book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, and Richard Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watchmaker.
Your post says these are all not trustworthy.
Meanwhile, evolutionary biologist Gunter Bechly reveals the weaknesses of the supposed mechanics of evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK79ZYOUqg0
And the terrible problems with the fossil record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V15sjy7gtVM
Of course, at the November 16, 2016, Royal Society conference, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” includes first the presentation by Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller, who wrote:
“[I]t has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.”
Prof. Muller's whole talk, available in print in conference's collection of papers, reveals many problems with the evolutionist dogma even as he urges scientists to somehow improve the theory.
So, the modern synthesis is not the unquestionable theory that many here seem to think.
1
-
@ensifolium Thank you for the dialogue. It might be a fun conversation to discuss how the American, perhaps the world's, people are steadily miseducated by books that proclaim "the science."
As we wrap up, the inability of the modern synthesis to explain broad swaths of supposed evolution is known to scientists, but not revealed to the public. I'll leave with this last quote confirming the theories problems from Prof. Muller at the Royal Society:
"Indeed, a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific ..."
(the numbers in brackets refer to the footnotes in the paper).
Cheerio!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WaaDoku Are you familiar with the British Royal Society, the organization once chaired by Sir Isaac Newton. At the November 16, 2016 Royal Society conference, “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” ithe first presentation by Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller, included his brief list of holes in the neo-Darwinian theory:
“[I]t has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.”
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
1
-
@WaaDoku In the same Royal Society presentation, Prof. Muller listed whole categories of problems with neo-Darwinian theory as identified by scientists and thinkers in the field:
[A] growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific…” (All the numbers point to citations in Muller's the published paper.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
cthulhucrews6602 No, it does not explain how brains evolved. Read evolutionist scientist Kenneth Miller's book, The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will (2018) -- the whole book is about brain evolution, supposedly. Read it -- I have -- nowhere does he explain how it actually evolved. You need to show the steps, the mechanics, etc., of how it is even plausible -- Miller fails utterly. Then read atheist Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos -- where he explains why evolution could not create a mind.
Evolution does not explain evolution of every species by any means. It is incapable of explaining the step by step series of undirected mutations that create, say, a bird from a reptile or dinosaur. You can't get operational software by accident either, yet it is needed by any species with a new or changed feature.
1
-
1
-
@RayPierreWhit607 Then you are familiar with the fact that Crick in 1957 observed DNA to be an encoded string containing information akin to software, not just chemistry.
Further, that encoded information is uniformly traceable back to a mind, not to undirected physical and chemical processes.
Moreover, that encoded information to direct a process, i.e., software, cannot be randomly mutated to change functions. And furthermore, the operations of the overwhelming majority if not all animals involve observable behavior -- but where the information exists for behavior is unknown and thus cannot be said to have "evolved."
Finally, as behaviors are different among animals, evolution has to explain how the behaviors in a predecessor species were successfully modified by undirected changes -- for every species having any behavior -- yet doing so is not possible for software, and nobody has shown how biological software can be modified, stored, and transmitted to subsequent generations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cizmo9917 To answer you -- you must have behavior for animals to function at any level.
Crick in 1957 observed DNA to be an encoded string containing information akin to software, not just chemistry.
We know encoded information is uniformly traceable back to a mind, not to undirected physical and chemical processes.
Moreover, we know that encoded information to direct a process, i.e., software, cannot be randomly mutated to change functions.
Furthermore, the operations of the overwhelming majority if not all animals involve observable behavior -- but where the information exists for behavior is unknown and thus cannot be said to have "evolved."
Finally, as behaviors are different among animals, evolution has to explain how the behaviors in a predecessor species were successfully modified by undirected changes -- for every species having any behavior -- yet doing so is not possible for software, and nobody has shown how biological software can be modified, stored, and transmitted to subsequent generations.
In mammal physiology, such as in humans, there is extensive engineering which includes integrated subsystems that communicate with one another and have set points, valid ranges, and feedback loops. (To name just a few.) This engineering requires purpose, plan, engineering, and foresight -- none of which arise by undirected physical and chemical forces acting upon matter.
Neo-D evolution depends upon undirected physical and chemical forces acting upon matter to make changes to genomes -- but that evolutionary method is incapable of designing, building, and modifying the software in behaviors or in the integrated subsystems that make up the functioning body.
1
-
1
-
@cizmo9917 I'm sorry, I thought I had replied to you on this. The answer is: Behavior is required for finding food, escaping enemies, and mating to reproduce, and for some species, to care for offspring. Without these behaviors, all of the changes in the biological hardware do nothing.
For instance -- a reptile hypothetically could "evolve" two wings [never been shown, but let's assume] -- the reptile cannot use the wings, cannot fly, navigate, land, or anything at all with the wings unless he has wing operating behavior already in place and working well. There is no survival advantage to wings on a bird if the bird lacks the software to operate the wings.
That is why it is fundamental for evolution to explain first how the software arises from innate matter, and then how the software is modified to match perfectly every change in the species' biological software.
1
-
1
-
@thealbinotadpole2878 Your post recites the tautological elementary "explanation"" of Neo-Darwinian evolution. Evolution is not "very well understood" as producing all species from common ancestors. It is asserted, not proven. Among the biggest holes in the theory involves operational information and behavior.
Crick in 1957 observed DNA to be an encoded string containing information akin to software, not just chemistry.
We know from unform and repeated experience -- the basis of science -- Further, that encoded information is uniformly traceable back to a mind, not to undirected physical and chemical processes.
Moreover, we know that encoded information to direct a process, i.e., software, cannot be randomly mutated to change functions. Furthermore, the operations of the overwhelming majority if not all animals involve observable behavior -- but where the information exists for behavior is unknown and thus cannot be said to have "evolved."
Finally, as behaviors are different among animals, evolution has to explain how the behaviors in a predecessor species were successfully modified by undirected changes -- for every species having any behavior -- yet successful undirected mutation is not possible for software, and nobody has shown how biological software can be modified, stored, and transmitted to subsequent generations.
It is not only not well understood -- it is unknown -- how behavioral software is handled in animals. And I mean the nuts and bolts of it, like we know it in computers and robots. Without behavior, animals don't do anything, so evolution needs to explain behavior -- or it is far from the "well understood" theory of the origin of species.
1
-
1
-
1