Aside from the “mirror neurons” argument, I don’t recall hearing where he gave a specific reference to any heritable “altruism” gene. He dismisses with a hand-wave how that concept largely fails in a neo-Darwinian model based on survival of the fittest alone (and the individual gene-passing drive, a la Dawkins’ selfish gene principle). Nor has he described in concrete terms how such a heritable sequence could arise by random mutation. We already know soulish animals exist. He gives more examples. So what? He underplays the key human features that DO distinguish us, in kind (not degree) from other soulish created beings. He constantly pre-assumes evolution in its full entirety rather than specifying what it can… and what it absolutely can NOT… account for.
The vampire bat meal sharing has been explained as a behavior favored by selection when individuals in a group repeatedly interact with each other. It is basically a “it’s good business” argument from economics.
@@numericalcode It’s sweet and all… but lots of soul-ish animals do things that are like that. Proves nothing specific except that they are also soulish… which we already know. Doesn’t explain a genetic source for it specifically, nor how random mutation could possibly generate new information that is clearly goal oriented above the individual organism. Most mutations by far are deleterious from the original DESIGN of the organism…. And those that aren’t are almost always not producing new sequences but rather jettison-ing sequences that somehow may hane a benefit (yet a benefit that always comes with a side-effect, some other cost that is not advantageous). Bats regurgitating for tells us absolutely nothing about how random mutation can generate new information, specifically, ones that have projected benefit beyond individual survival. Pretty clear.
@@mkl2237 I agree the example does not address the origin of genetic novelty. Scientists just try to address one question. All that is required is existing variation to produce the sharing vs not-sharing behaviors. If sharing has higher fitness, those genes will proliferate. And it definitely does not address whether bats have anything like souls.
Cool! Not something you normally find on a Christian channel. I personally don't think that there's any reason to believe in a god, and I think that the more Christians dare to use that exceptionally great, but still not *that* exceptional, thinking ability, the closer they will come to accepting that it was humans who created God in their image, not the other way around.
Informative presentation
Aside from the “mirror neurons” argument, I don’t recall hearing where he gave a specific reference to any heritable “altruism” gene. He dismisses with a hand-wave how that concept largely fails in a neo-Darwinian model based on survival of the fittest alone (and the individual gene-passing drive, a la Dawkins’ selfish gene principle). Nor has he described in concrete terms how such a heritable sequence could arise by random mutation. We already know soulish animals exist. He gives more examples. So what? He underplays the key human features that DO distinguish us, in kind (not degree) from other soulish created beings. He constantly pre-assumes evolution in its full entirety rather than specifying what it can… and what it absolutely can NOT… account for.
The vampire bat meal sharing has been explained as a behavior favored by selection when individuals in a group repeatedly interact with each other. It is basically a “it’s good business” argument from economics.
@@numericalcode It’s sweet and all… but lots of soul-ish animals do things that are like that. Proves nothing specific except that they are also soulish… which we already know. Doesn’t explain a genetic source for it specifically, nor how random mutation could possibly generate new information that is clearly goal oriented above the individual organism. Most mutations by far are deleterious from the original DESIGN of the organism…. And those that aren’t are almost always not producing new sequences but rather jettison-ing sequences that somehow may hane a benefit (yet a benefit that always comes with a side-effect, some other cost that is not advantageous). Bats regurgitating for tells us absolutely nothing about how random mutation can generate new information, specifically, ones that have projected benefit beyond individual survival. Pretty clear.
@@mkl2237 I agree the example does not address the origin of genetic novelty. Scientists just try to address one question. All that is required is existing variation to produce the sharing vs not-sharing behaviors. If sharing has higher fitness, those genes will proliferate. And it definitely does not address whether bats have anything like souls.
Cool! Not something you normally find on a Christian channel. I personally don't think that there's any reason to believe in a god, and I think that the more Christians dare to use that exceptionally great, but still not *that* exceptional, thinking ability, the closer they will come to accepting that it was humans who created God in their image, not the other way around.