Comments by "nunca789" (@nunca789) on "Tucker Carlson - Darwin's Theory of Evolution Was Wrong" video.

Actually no - the evidence is assembled by people who assume the theory is correct. They do not explain the process, they just assume it. Example: Birds evolved from reptiles - there are literally millions of things that needed changing to make a warm blooded winged flying animal from a cold blooded scaled terrestrial animal - one or two dubious fossils cannot explain all the engineering required to "evolve" from reptile to bird. And that is just one example.
4
@slopedarmor Actually, no -- you will not find a neo-Darwinian explanation of how the hardware and software of the reptile was changed from terrestrial cold blooded animal to flying and navigating warm blooded animal. A million fossils says nothing about how the organisms were engineered and built. Um, as you say, "deal with it."
3
Yes, Tucker is correct.
2
@maximusreed9270 One cannot validly argue that that "evidence lost to time" is evidence. Fundamentally missing from all "eons" evidence, however, is one iota of explanation for how biological software emerged from hardware, and how biological software can be modified by accidents.
2
@cizmo9917 Actually, macro evolution is nowhere near a fact and is not observable. Otherwise, you could point me to where evolution explains how behaviors are devised, stored, fetched, executed, modified, and later transmitted from parent to offspring. Not some claim about behaviors -- the actual mechanics of where and how software for behaviors is stored, used, and conveyed.
2
@Tanirocker Time does not explain how a system of subsystems is engineered, which animals are. Just saying "given enough time" avails nothing -- you have to show the plausible steps.
2
@thealbinotadpole2878 "Evolution is hardly a stepwise sequence from one trait to another" -- that assertion runs directly counter to the oft-repeated contention by evolutionists who say precisely that neo-Darwinian evolution proceeds by very small mutations over very long periods of time. Here are quotes from UC Berkeley's extensive discussion of evolution: 1. "evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations with small effects." 2. "sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation." 3. "So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation" 4. "And major evolutionary change (e.g., the “superpower” of flight in bats!) generally involves the accumulation of many, many mutations over many, many generations, with a few notable exceptions." The scientists at Berkeley think evolution does occur stepwise from one feature to another. Not sure why your post wants to distance itself from the standard theory's tenets.
2
@thealbinotadpole2878 Of course I read it. It appears you're now changing the point you want to make. I'm interested in what you are claiming now.
2
Population genetics says nothing about how genomes contain the engineering data and procedures to build plants and animals. Neo-D doesn't either, with or without population genetics. Thus to claim Neo-D evolution works, you'll need to explain how precise engineering comes from unguided processes. Population genetics supplies no answers to that.
1
@adamsymthe5389 Neo-Darwinism, sometimes called the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.
1
You speak the truth, Chad.
1
@maximusreed9270 Which concepts?
1
@maximusreed9270 Note that none of those stated mechanisms can develop whole new body plans and simultaneously the supporting physiology hardware and software. The theory relies on "eons of time" as you mention, yet the mechanisms cannot explain anything beyond variations within existing genomes. By "explain" I mean show the exact steps, not just the presumption that "given enough time anything can happen."
1
@maximusreed9270 "Selection pressure" is another way of saying that some feature or aspect of a species affords greater opportunities to survive and reproduce. Selection pressure as a concept is undisputed. But the fact that some features of a species confer advantages in a given environment does not explain how undirected modifications of the genome and/or epigenetic elements can create new body plans, new organs, new biological software to operate new hardware, and so on.
1
@chadelliottfahlman Agreed! To analogize: if we have the most powerful computer hardware in the world, it will do nothing without software. Software is stored data and instruction sets. Behavior in an animal or human, for example, is software -- not hardware. There is no theoretical way to write software by accident to operate hardware -- and no way to modify existing software by accident to develop new and different behaviors needed to deploy new or changed hardware. Claiming that a currently observed behavior stemmed from prior behaviors that somehow arose "eons ago" does not solve the problem of creating behavior software in the first place nor the of modifying such software to address new situations or operate changed hardware.
1
@maximusreed9270 Very good then -- we agree that the current theory of evolution does not explain the origin of species and Mr. Darwin's belief was and remains erroneous. That's what Mr. Carlson said as well. I think this wraps up our conversation. Thank you.
1
@maximusreed9270 Well, the "whole theory" expressly relies upon the accumulation of mutations over huge numbers of generations, in every species, and depends upon the fact that some mutations somehow confer a statistically significant survival advantage to some members of the species such that they survive longer and/or reproduce more successfully. Every species -- every one -- depends upon a long series of "single threads" of supposedly successful small mutations accumulating (somehow) over hundreds and thousands of generations. When we see that the small mutations and the supposed accumulation of changes cannot actually develop new body plans, new organs, and the behaviors to support them, then we see the "whole cloth" of the theory fails to explain what Darwin declared, i.e., the origins of all species.
1
@maximusreed9270 of course I didn't say mutations cause accumulation. Mutations are changes. The evolution theory must, but cannot, demonstrate how changes accumulate. Unless any given mutation confers a survival or reproductive advantage, there is no "evolutionary" mechanism that stores it up hoping for some future series of undirected mutations to make it confer an advantage. The inadequacy of the evolution explanation is maximal where it cannot even begin to explain the unplanned, undirected creation of systems comprised of coherent intercommunicating subsystems with foresight and negative feedback loops.
1
@maximusreed9270 Mutation means change. Read the Stanford University website on evolution. That's my source of information. Refute Stanford if you like.
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
Nothing that you wrote explains how by neo-Darwinian mechanisms there came to be warm blooded flying animals with three dimensional navigation software -- from a terrestrial cold blooded animal with no flying capability whatsoever. And that is only one of millions of things neo-D cannot explain. Thus, neo-D is not "obvious" as your stones example tries to say.
1
Actually there is no evidence that people evolved seamlessly from a single cell amoeba. So what's your point?
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
@WaaDoku I rely on the textbook sources, one of which explains: “At the heart of the modern synthesis is the view that evolution is gradual and can be explained by small genetic changes in populations over time, due to the impact of natural selection on the phenotypic variation among individuals in the populations (Mayr 1982; Futuyama 1986). According to the modern synthesis as originally established, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (it is now known to be caused sometimes by mistakes in DNA replication and via genetic recombination—the crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). This genetic variation leads to phenotypic changes among members of a population. Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of natural selection. Speciation, the creation of new species, is a gradual process that generally occurs when populations become more and more diversified as a result of having been isolated, such as via geographic barriers, and eventually the populations develop mechanisms of reproductive isolation. Over time, these small changes will lead to major changes in design or the creation of new taxa.” https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neo-Darwinism
1
I'm guessing you're unaware of the scholarly critiques of "evolution" thus you act as though it is a proven explanation for the existence of every species -- when it is entirely underpowered to explain the existence of brains that learn and make decisions - for just one huge example.
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
Your post illustrates ignorance of the critique of darwinian evolution. Pretty haughty language deployed here from commenters unfamiliar with the opposing scholarship.
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
The distinction is between theory and law. Darwinism never got even close to a law of science.
1
@slopedarmor Oh. What makes a scientific law then? Lack of proof?
1
@tubehenry Fair enough. You observed what you believe is a rhetorical misstep on Tucker's part.
1
@tubehenry Okay -- then I imagine you're nonstop pointing out Mr. Biden's near daily verbal missteps as major flaws, inasmuch as Biden is a President of the U.S., held to an even higher standard than a journalist.
1
@ethanhenley2103 From my reading online, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not an "equation" -- it is a uniformly and repeatedly observed fact. It is a Law for that reason, not because there is an equation associated with it.
1
@ethanhenley2103 Yes, the "equation" to which you refer is a symbolic way of stating the 2nd Law -- it adds nothing to a verbal description of the Law. To your new point -- whether a system is open or closed is practically irrelevant -- evolution contends it can build new hardware and software systems via undirected forces acting upon matter. That's what needs to be shown -- not whether there is outside undirected unthinking energy from the Universe that can enter the Earth's thermodynamic space. Moreover, the 2nd Law makes evolution's job harder because the biological systems must themselves battle the universal tendency to lower temperatures and less energy available for work.
1
@ethanhenley2103 Energy does not design and build things. Minds do. Referring to sunlight entering the ecosystem adds nothing to explaining how systems comprised of integrated subsystems are engineered. All of the methods of changing the genome , etc., lack the power to add new functions that weren't pre-existing possibilities. Even the "third way" theory of evolution realizes that. Those methods of change do not engineer new systems of subsystems.
1
Darwinism as explaining the origins of all species has not been tested over time. It has been assumed by people who can't stand the thought of an intelligent designer.
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
@thealbinotadpole2878 "Living beings are computers, you say." Then you concede they need software to operate. Software cannot evolve from non-software, and software cannot be successfully be modified by random physical forces to perform new functions. You assert there is "no fetch, decode, execute cycle for an organism." You're welcome to try to prove that. The problem for you will be identifying where the control software resides in the first place.
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
@cizmo9917 Actually, evolution is not observed to engineer systems comprised of subsystems, which is what animals are. What evolution claims to explain it cannot.
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
@thealbinotadpole2878 Sorry you're going the route of arguing over terminology after you made a statement that you either cannot defend or want to change. Your calling me a liar rather ends my interest in the dialogue. I attacked you not once, I accused of no misconduct. So we're done. But thanks.
1
@thealbinotadpole2878 You called me a liar. Apologize like a gentleman.
1