Chizuko Mifune, Clairvoyant Wonder Woman

The evidence for clairvoyance is overwhelming, and it includes nearly two hundred years of written evidence by distinguished writers including many doctors and professors. Let us look at another of the endless examples of written evidence for clairvoyance: the 1931 book "Clairvoyance & Thoughtography" by Tomokici Fukurai, a Japanese professor and president of the Psychical Institute of Japan, a book that can be read here.  On the first page of the book, Fukurai notes the hostile reception his observation reports received. Despite such hostility, he rightly states at the beginning of the book that clairvoyance is a fact. 

The first chapter deals with stunningly successful clairvoyance experiments Fukurai did with Chizuko Mifune (1886-1911), who Fukurai describes as having an odd, somber personality, and being very much prone to stick to what impressions she got about a person upon first meeting with such a person.  

Chizuko Mifune (1886-1911)

Fukurai suggests on pages 16-17 that Chizuko probably was driven to suicide by skeptics making unfavorable comments about her.  He says, "Judging from these letters, besides agony over her family affairs, the suspicious criticism of scientists on the clairvoyance force, the gradual declining of her psychic force, the appearance of Mrs. Nagao and many other mediums, etc seemed to wound her amour propre and to influence her to commit suicide."

On page 21 Fukurai describes this method of preparing sealed envelopes containing contents to be used for clairvoyance testing, one involving characters blocked by opaque cards on both the front and back, and also blocked by tin foil on the front of the characters, with this arrangement put in opaque sealed envelopes:

The sealed envelopes were sent to Chizuko and returned to Fukurai, and on page 22 Fukurai says he examined the envelopes and found them unopened: "I examined the seams of the envelopes, but there was not the slightest shadow of doubt."

Page 24 gives the answers that Chizuko gave. That page is shown below. References by Chizuko to "dingy paper" apparently refer to the tin foil in the envelopes. Clicking on the image and inspecting it carefully will reveal that the results are almost perfectly accurate, with almost every character correctly identified. Even without being able to read Japanese, an English reader will be able to check the accuracy by simply checking the appearances of the characters of the left column and the corresponding answers in the right column. The only shortfalls are that only the first  six characters in Envelope 10 were read, and that one of the characters in Envelope 6 (the last character in the second row) seems to be wrong. It is inconceivable that anyone could get so many matches by guessing. 

Japanese characters may use any of three different writing systems: Hiragana, Katakana or Kanji.  The main part of the Hiragana alphabet is about 46 characters, and the main part of the Katakana alphabet is also about 46 characters, as we in the charts below. The Kanji alphabet apparently has thousands of different characters. I cannot find any of the more elaborate characters listed above in a listing of either the Hiragana or Katakana characters, like the one we see below. 

We apparently had Kanji characters being included in the guess targets for this test of clairvoyance. When such characters are included as guess targets, along with the two alphabets (Hiragana or Katakana) having a total of about 92 characters, the likelihood of correctly guessing three out of three random characters would seem to be less than about 1 in a million, and the chance of getting any of the more impressive successes shown above (such as 22 out of 23 correct or 16 out of 16 correct) is basically zero, something we would never expect to occur if there were 1,000,000,000,000,000 people spending their whole lives guessing. 

On page 25 Fukurai starts to discuss experiments done by "Dr. Imamuru, Professor at the Kyoto Imperial University." These were face-to-face experiments with Chizuko Mifune in which she was constantly observed. The first test on February 20 made use of twelve objects which were each put in a separate envelope, pasted and sealed. We read on page 26 of this success, in one of the characters was identified:

In the following tests conducted by the professor, Chizuko failed in test 2, but succeeded in tests 3 and 4, test 4 requiring the identification of a character wrapped in tin foil and thick paper. On page 30 we read of tests of Chizuko performed the next day (February 21).  We read of two consecutive successes in tests of clairvoyance:

On the next trial Chizuko was successful on a harder test of clairvoyance. She correctly identified the exact two Japanese characters in a sealed envelope in which the letters were on a scrap of paper covered by two thick sheets of paper. Particularly impressive was the 4th trial reported on pages 33-34. A professor randomly selected one of a thousand business cards, and without reading it, put in an iron pot which was wrapped in paper.  Chizuko successfully identified four characters on the business card. 

On page 36 we begin to read of tests done with Chizuko Mifune on April 10, 1910, in the presence of  Professor Imamuru, Mr. Kiyohara and Fukurai. In the second trial Chizuko was asked to identify characters on a name card put in a china tea pot sealed in paper. She correctly identified all five Japanese characters on the card. A few trials later in the day were unsuccessful. On the next day on the first trial Chizuko was successful, identifying four Japanese characters on a name card covered in two sheets of paper and put in an envelope. On the second trial involving a name card put in a china teapot with a double-lid, sealed in paper, Chizuko got three out of four characters correct.  In the third trial involving a name card in an iron pot sealed by paper, Chizuko named all four characters correctly. In all these tests she was closely observed by multiple witnesses, seeming to prevent any possibility of tampering with the guess targets.  

Another series of trials on April 12, 1910 was conducted in the villa of Mr. Nagasaki, and observed by Professor Imamuru,  Fukurai, and Nagasaki. The successful first test (involving naming all five characters on a name card) is described below:

There was later some trials on April 17, 1910, involving Professor Imamuru,  Fukurai, and a Mr. Kiyohara, at the house of Mr. Kiyohara. In the first trial Fukurai picked randomly from a group of fifty name cards, putting the card in a teapot, which was then put in a wooden box, over which a paper was pasted, with a seal put on the paper. Chizuko named four out of four characters correctly. The second trial involved similar conditions, with Chizuko naming the first three characters correctly, erring on the last one. In the third trial involving similar conditions, all four characters on the name card were named correctly. The fourth trial used similar conditions, with an even greater success:  Chizuko named ten out of ten characters correctly. Figure 16 shown below shows the name cards used in these tests, the one on the bottom right being the card with ten characters.

Later tests were done on April 15, 1910, at Mr. Nagasaki's villa, with the tests witnessed by Iseri, Kiyohari, Professor Imamuru,  and Fukurai, As you can see below, page 45 of the book lists the first three tests as producing perfect results, with 13 out of 13 hidden characters correctly identified:

The fourth trial was very different, involving a test of the ability to identify randomly selected coins, placed by Fukurai in what he calls a purse, and then wrapped in paper. Chizuko perfectly identified a series of coins consisting of "three coins of ten sen, one coin of one sen, and one coin of two sen." The author then describes a mail test involving cards in a wooden box wrapped up in multiple layers that had various types of seals to prevent tampering. Again, Chizuko perfectly identified ten out of ten characters in the heavily sealed box, which was returned with the seals unbroken. 

On page 48 we read of clairvoyance test targets Fukurai had another person prepare, after Fukurai got feedback from other professors. The targets are described below:

On pages 50 to 51 we learn of the results Chizuko achieved on these tests: perfect results, with 11 out of 11 characters correctly identified. Page 52 reports equally perfect results by Chizuko in tests of clairvoyance, involving targets that were mostly letters, but in one case a drawing of a shape looking like a pie with six pieces.  On page 55 we read of rigorous tests of clairvoyance performed on September 2, 1910, with  tests witnessed by Mifune,  Kiyohari, Professor Imamuru,  and Fukurai:

 

After failing on the first trial using such a method (not producing an answer because of some concentration problem), Chizoku succeeded perfectly on the second and third trials, both times naming three out of three characters.  Page 57 describes additional successful trials with Chizoku on another date:

On page 59 we read of a test of Chizuko in which she successfully named all three characters written on a piece of flat pipe that had its two ends sealed by heat-soldering.  The next page reports a similar success on the next trial, with all three letters being successfully read in a lead pipe that was in a pot kept in a wooden case, with additional paper covering and a seal.  On page 63 the author tells of nine tests he did with Chizuko on November 18, 1910, tests in which she was asked to tell the numbers shown on a pair of dice that were put in a black cigarette case, wrapped in paper, with the paper sealed by the author.  In 6 out of 9 trials Chizuko identified the correct number shown on the dice. 

There are 55 numbers that a pair of dice can show, ranging from 11 to 66. Using the binomial probability calculator at the Wolfram Alpha site, I get a probability of such a result as being about 1 in 300,000,000. Such a success seems to be vastly less impressive than the correct guesses of Japanese characters by Chizoku described above. As noted earlier, the simplest Japanese alphabets (Hiragana and Katakana) each consist of 46 characters. But the more complex characters listed above (which I cannot find on lists of Hiragana and Katakana characters) seem to be Kanji characters, and there are thousands of different Kanji characters. 

The author's last page on Chizuku is one with the saddest irony. We read of her success in the most stringent trial, involving reading letters written on a piece of paper inside a flat iron pipe that had both ends soldered tight.  The author tells us that this triumphant test was his last involvement with Chizoku, who soon thereafter committed suicide.  The groundless criticism of her by skeptics may have been a major factor in her suicide. 

No one who has seriously studied the evidence for clairvoyance should be surprised by the reports above. They are simply a replication of what was very abundantly reported in the nineteenth century by a great many reliable witnesses, including professors and many doctors.  As you can read here, the evidence for the clairvoyance of Alexis Didier was every bit as convincing as the evidence for the clairvoyance of  Chizuko Mifune; and Didier repeatedly passed the most stringent tests of his ability to reveal the contents of sealed boxes, and to state detailed corrections descriptions of houses he had never visited.

For example, on pages 508-509 of the  document here, we read that Alexis Didier was able to  describe an object in a thick closed case, an object he had never seen, and also to tell various unusual facts about that object that could not be guessed from its appearance:

"An officer, of long standing in the army, who was severely wounded at Waterloo, and is well known in the highest military circles, was one of the company present. He was an unbeliever, and knew nothing of mesmerism, and had never seen or scarcely heard of Alexis, — but having been accidentally invited to join the party, and been told that the young man had the power of reading through opaque objects, he determined to bring his talent rigidly to the test.
He produced a morocco case, eight inches long, and an inch and a half thick, looking like a surgical instrument case, or a small jewel-case. It was placed in the hands of Alexis, who held it for a short time in silence, and then gradually and slowly gave the following description :

 'The object within the case is a hard substance.'
' It is folded in an envelope.'
' The envelope is whiter than the thing itself.' (The envelope was a piece of silver-paper.)
' It is a kind of ivory.'
'It has a point (pique) at one end' (which is the case).
' It is a bone.'
' Taken from a body'—
' From a human body' —
' From your body.'
' The bone has been separated and cut, so as to leave a flat side.'

This was true : the bone, which was a piece of the colonel's leg, and sawed off after the wound, is flat towards the part that enclosed the marrow.

Here, Alexis removed the piece of bone from the case, and placed his finger on a part, and said, ' The ball struck here.' (True.)

' It was an extraordinary ball, as to its effect.'

'You received three separate injuries at the same moment.' (Which was the case, for the ball broke or burst into three pieces, and injured the colonel in three places in the same leg.)

' You were wounded in the early part of the day, whilst charging the enemy.' (Which was the fact.)"

To read 25 posts telling about how convincing is the evidence for clairvoyance, use the link here, and keep pressing Older Posts at the bottom right. 

Our education system will be operating well when every high school graduate knows some names such as Chizuko Mifune, Alexis Didier, Hubert Pearce, Daniel Dunglas Home, Leonora Piper, Kate Fox and Florence Cook. When 9 out of 10 students graduate high school and 9 out of 10 students graduate college without ever even having heard such names mentioned, as now occurs, it is a sign of how defective our educational systems are. 

No, Scientists Never Really Did Any of These Eight Things

We live in a world intellectually dominated by the unfounded boasts and triumphal legends of scientists and materialists.  One of those triumphal legends is the "Darwin explained it all" legend:

As an antidote to such misleading claims, it is a good for a person to keep a "no, they didn't" list. Below are some items that should be put on such a list. 

#1: No, They Didn't Ever Make Any Important Progress in Explaining What Caused the Origin of the Universe

The Big Bang theory is a theory describing the origin of the universe. The theory describes the universe suddenly beginning in a state of basically infinite heat and density about 13 billion years ago. But the theory is not an explanation of the origin of the universe in the sense of giving us an explanation of what caused the universe's origin. The Big Bang theory offers no explanation for what caused the Big Bang. 

#2 No, They Didn't Ever Create a Predictively Successful Theory Describing the Origin of the Universe

The Big Bang theory is often described as one that makes successful predictions, on the grounds that (1) it predicts the cosmic background radiation that has been observed, and (2) it predicts a distribution of elements similar to the observed distribution of elements in the universe. But it is a huge falsehood to claim that the Big Bang is predictively successful. The fact is that the Big Bang theory does not predict a universe anything like the one we observe. It instead predicts a universe of either pure energy, or a universe that has 50% of its matter as antimatter. We live in no such universe. 

Scientists believe that when two very high-energy photons collide, they produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that when matter collides with antimatter, it is converted into high-energy photons. Such a belief is based on what scientists have observed in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider, where particles are accelerated to near the speed of light before they collide with each other. But such conclusions about matter, antimatter and photons lead to a great mystery as to why there is any matter at all in the universe.

Let us imagine the early minutes of the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago, when the density of the universe was incredibly great. At that time the universe should have consisted of energy, matter and antimatter. The energy should have been in the form of very high energy photons that were frequently colliding with each other. All such collisions should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. For example, a collision of high energy particles with sufficient energy creates a matter proton and an antimatter particle called an antiproton. So the amount of antimatter shortly after the Big Bang should have been exactly the same as the amount of matter.  But whenever a matter particle touched an antimatter particle, both would have been converted into photons. The eventual result should have been a universe consisting either of nothing but photons, or some matter but an equal amount of antimatter. But only trace amounts of antimatter are observed in the universe. A universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have been uninhabitable, because of the vast amount of lethal energy released when even a tiny bit of matter comes in contact with a tiny bit of antimatter.

The mystery of why we live in a universe that is almost all matter (rather than antimatter) is called the baryon asymmetry problem or the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem.  Here are some scientist quotes on this matter:

• "One cannot ignore the deep, unanswered question concerning the origin of the baryonic component because baryons and antibaryons should have annihilated almost completely, leaving only a negligible abundance today. Yet we observe a far greater concentration than the standard model of particle physics  and the first and second laws of thermodynamics should have permitted. So where did baryons come from?"  Astronomer Fulvio Melia, "A Candid Assessment of Standard Cosmology," 2022.
• "We believe the big bang produced the same amounts of matter and antimatter. These should have annihilated each other, leaving a universe made of electromagnetic radiation and not much else.” -- Professor Stefan Ulmer, a scientist at CERN (link). 
• "The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found." -- "The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem," a page on the CERN web site describing the European Organization for Nuclear Research projects (link).

#3 No, They Didn't Ever Make Any Real Progress in Explaining the Origin of Life

Some of the worst examples of phony-baloney "science news" comes when the topic of abiogenesis is discussed. Abiogenesis is the idea that life can naturally arise from non-life. Everything we know about the complexity and amount of organization in living things argues against this idea. Even the simplest living thing is a cell that requires hundreds of different types of protein molecules to exist and reproduce. Each of those types of protein molecules is a separate complex invention as unlikely to arise by chance as a well-written 100-word paragraph from a random arrangement of shells and pebbles and seaweed at a seashore.

There are no experiments supporting the idea of abiogenesis. No one has ever produced a living thing from any experiment realistically simulating lifeless early Earth conditions. No one has ever produced a functional protein molecule (one of the building blocks of one-celled life) from any experiment realistically simulating early Earth conditions. No one has ever even produced one of the building blocks of the building blocks of one-celled life (an amino acid) from any experiment realistically simulating early Earth conditions. The Miller-Urey experiment which produced some amino acids was not a realistic simulation of early Earth conditions, for reasons discussed in my post here. The apparatus used by the Miller-Urey experiment was a manufactured device unlike anything that would have existed in the early Earth. We have had seventy years of lies from the mainstream press about the Miller-Urey experiment, claims that it revealed something that it did not actually reveal. 

Despite an utter lack of progress by scientists in doing anything the explain the origin of life, we have had 70 years of deceptive stories in the science news trying to create the impression that some progress was made on the topic. 

Here are some relevant quotes by scientists or doctors:

• The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015)." -- "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?," a paper by 21 scientists,  2018. 
• "Biochemistry's orthodox account of how life emerged from a primordial soup of such chemicals lacks experimental support and is invalid because, among other reasons, there is an overwhelming statistical improbability that random reactions in an aqueous solution could have produced self-replicating RNA molecules."  John Hands MD, "Cosmo Sapiens: Human Evolution From the Origin of the Universe," page 411. 
• "The ongoing insistence on defending scientific orthodoxies on these matters, even against a formidable tide of contrary evidence, has turned out to be no less repressive than the discarded superstitions in earlier times. For instance, although all attempts to demonstrate spontaneous generation in the laboratory have led to failure for over half a century, strident assertions of its necessary operation against the most incredible odds continue to dominate the literature." -- 3 scientists (link).
• "The interconnected nature of DNA, RNA, and proteins means that it could not have sprung up ab initio from the primordial ooze, because if only one component is missing then the whole system falls apart – a three-legged table with one missing cannot stand." -- "The Improbable Origins of Life on Earth" by astronomer Paul Sutter. 
• "Even the simplest of these substances [proteins} represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as improbable as would the accidental origin of the text of Virgil's 'Aeneid'  from scattered letter type." -- Chemist A. I. Oparin, "The Origin of Life," pages 132-133.
• "The expected number of abiogenesis events is much smaller than unity when we observe a star, a galaxy, or even the whole observable universe." -- Scientist Tomonori Totani, "Emergence of life in an inflationary universe," a paper confessing we would not expect one natural origin of life (abiogenesis) even in the entire observable universe (link).
• "We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive." --  -- Michael Denton, MD and biochemistry PhD, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," page 250.

#4: No, They Didn't Ever Explain How Any Adult Human Body Originates or How Any Speck-Sized Zygote Progresses to Become a Full-Sized Baby

If someone defines a fertilized human egg as a human being, a definition that is very debatable, you might be able to say, "I understand the physical origin of a human being," and merely refer to a sperm uniting with an egg cell as such an origin.  But a bigger question is whether anyone understands the physical origin of an adult human being. The physical structure of an adult human being is a state of organization millions of times more complex than a mere fertilized speck-sized egg cell.  (A human egg cell is about a tenth of a millimeter in length, but a human body occupies a volume of about 75 million cubic millimeters.) So you don't explain the physical origin of an adult human being by merely referring to the fertilization of an egg cell during or after sexual intercourse. 

We cannot explain the origin of an adult human body by merely using words such as "development" or "growth." Trying to explain the origin of an adult human body by merely mentioning a starting cell and mentioning "growth" or "development" is as vacuous as trying to explain the mysterious appearance of a building by saying that it appeared through "origination" or "construction."  If we were to find some mysterious huge building on Mars, we would hardly be explaining it by merely saying that it arose from "origination" or by saying that it appeared through "construction." When a person tries to explain the origin of a human body by merely mentioning "growth" or "development" or "morphogenesis," he is giving as empty an explanation as someone who tells you he knows how World War II started, because he knows that it was caused by "historical events."

There is a more specific account often told to try to explain the origin of an adult human body. The account goes something like this:

"Every cell contains a DNA molecule that is a blueprint for constructing a human, all the information that is needed. So what happens is that inside the body of a mother, this DNA plan for a human body is read, and the body of a baby is gradually constructed. It's kind of like a construction crew working from a blueprint to make a building."

The problem with this account is that while it has been told very many times, the story is just plain false. There is no such blueprint for a human being in human DNA. We know exactly what is in human DNA. It is merely low-level chemical information such as the sequence of amino acids that make up polypeptide chains that are the starting points of protein molecules. DNA does not specify anatomy. DNA is not a blueprint for making a human. DNA is not a recipe for making a human. DNA is not a program or algorithm for making a human. Not only does DNA not specify how to make a human, DNA does not even specify how to make any organ or appendage or cell of a human. There are about 200 types of cells in human beings, each an incredibly organized thing (cells are so complex they are sometimes compared to factories or cities).  DNA does not specify how to make any of these 200 types of cells. Cells are built from smaller structural units called organelles. DNA does not even specify how to make such low-level organelles. 

Here are a few relevant quotes by authorities:

• On page 26 of the recent book The Developing Genome, Professor David S. Moore states, "The common belief that there are things inside of us that constitute a set of instructions for building bodies and minds -- things that are analogous to 'blueprints' or 'recipes' -- is undoubtedly false."
• Biologist Rupert Sheldrake says this "DNA only codes for the materials from which the body is constructed: the enzymes, the structural proteins, and so forth," and "There is no evidence that it also codes for the plan, the form, the morphology of the body."
• Describing conclusions of biologist Brian Goodwin, the New York Times says, "While genes may help produce the proteins that make the skeleton or the glue, they do not determine the shape and form of an embryo or an organism." 
• Professor Massimo Pigliucci (mainstream author of numerous scientific papers on evolution) has stated  that "old-fashioned metaphors like genetic blueprint and genetic programme are not only woefully inadequate but positively misleading."
• Neuroscientist Romain Brette states, "The genome does not encode much except for amino acids."
• In a 2016 scientific paper, three scientists state the following: "It is now clear that the genome does not directly program the organism; the computer program metaphor has misled us...The genome does not function as a master plan or computer program for controlling the organism; the genome is the organism's servant, not its master.
• In the book Mind in Life by Evan Thompson (published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press) we read the following on page 180: "The plain truth is that DNA is not a program for building organisms, as several authors have shown in detail (Keller 2000, Lewontin 1993, Moss 2003)."
• Developmental biologist C/H. Waddington stated, "The DNA is not a program or sequentially accessed control over the behavior of the cell."
•  Scientists Walker and Davies state this in a scientific paper: "DNA is not a blueprint for an organism; no information is actively processed by DNA alone...DNA is a passive repository for transcription of stored data into RNA, some (but by no means all) of which goes on to be translated into proteins."
• Geneticist Adam Rutherford states that "DNA is not a blueprint," a statement also made by biochemistry professor Keith Fox.
• "The genome is not a blueprint," says Kevin Mitchell, a geneticist and neuroscientist at Trinity College Dublin, noting "it doesn't encode some specific outcome."
• "DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life," says Antony Jose, associate professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, who says, "It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times."  
• Sergio Pistoi (a science writer with a PhD in molecular biology) tells us, "DNA is not a blueprint," and tells us, "We do not inherit specific instructions on how to build a cell or an organ." 
• Michael Levin (director of a large biology research lab) states that "genomes are not a blueprint for anatomy," and after referring to a "deep puzzle" of how biological forms arise, he gives this example: "Scientists really don’t know what determines the intricate shape and structure of the flatworm’s head."
• Ian Stevenson M.D. stated "Genes alone - which provide instructions for the production of amino acids and proteins -- cannot explain how the proteins produced by their instructions come to have the shape they develop and, ultimately, determine the form of the organisms where they are," and noted that "biologists who have drawn attention to this important gap in our knowledge of form have not been a grouping of mediocrities (Denton, 1986; Goldschmidt, 1952; B. C. Goodwin, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1994; Gottlieb, 1992; Grasse, 1973; E. S. Russell...Sheldrake, 1981; Tauber and Sarkar, 1992; Thompson, 1917/1942)."
• Biologist B.C. Goodwin stated this in 1989: "Since genes make molecules, genetics...does not tell us how the molecules are organized into the dynamic, organized process that is the living organism."
• An article in the journal Nature states this: "The manner in which bodies and tissues take form remains 'one of the most important, and still poorly understood, questions of our time', says developmental biologist Amy Shyer, who studies morphogenesis at the Rockefeller University in New York City."
• Timothy Saunders, a developmental biologist at the National University of Singapore, says, "Fundamentally, we have a poor understanding of how any internal organ forms.” 
• In an essay pointing out the vast complexities and interlocking dependencies of even simpler aspects of biology such as angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels),  Jonathan Bard of Oxford University states, "It is pushing the boundaries of belief too far to believe that it is helpful to see the genome as holding a program." 
• A paper by Stuart A. Newman (a professor of cell biology and anatomy) discussing at length the work of scientists trying to evoke "self-organization" as an explanation for morphogenesis states that "public lectures by principals of the field contain confidently asserted, but similarly oversimplified or misleading treatments," and says that "these analogies...give the false impression that there has been more progress in understanding embryonic development than there truly has been." Referring to scientists moving from one bunk explanation of morphogenesis to another bunk explanation for it, the paper concludes by stating, "It would be unfortunate if we find ourselves having emerged from a period of misconceived genetic program metaphors only to land in a brave new world captivated by equally misguided ones about self-organization."
• Referring to claims there is a program for building organisms in DNA, biochemist F. M. Harold stated "reflection on the findings with morphologically aberrant mutants suggests that the metaphor of a genetic program is misleading." Referring to  self-organization (a vague phrase sometimes used to try to explain morphogenesis), he says, "self-organization remains nearly as mysterious as it was a century ago, a subject in search of a paradigm." 
• Physician James Le Fanu states the following:

  
  

  "The genome projects were predicated on the reasonable assumption that spelling out the full sequence of genes would reveal the distinctive genetic instructions that determine the diverse forms of life. Biologists were thus understandably disconcerted to discover that precisely the reverse is the case. Contrary to all expectations, there is a near equivalence of 20,000 genes across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimetre-long worm to ourselves. It was no less disconcerting to learn that the human genome is virtually interchangeable with that of both the mouse and our primate cousins...There is in short nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly has six legs, a pair of wings and a dot-sized brain and that we should have two arms, two legs and a mind capable of comprehending the history of our universe."

The lack of any specification for building a human in DNA is only one of two major reasons why a reading from DNA cannot explain the physical origin of a newborn baby or an adult. The second major reason is that there is nothing in the human body that would be capable of reading a DNA specification for making a human, if such a thing happened to exist.  Consider what goes on when a house is built. Dumping some building materials and a blueprint will never cause a house to be built. The house can only get built if there are intelligent blueprint readers smart enough to read the complex blueprints, and carry out their instructions. With about 200 types of cells, each so complex they are often compared to factories, a human body is something a million times harder to build than a mere house. If there were some instructions for building a human in DNA, such instructions would be so complex that they would require something extremely intelligent to interpret such instructions and carry them out. But we know of no such intelligence existing in a human womb where a baby grows. 

The "DNA as blueprint" idea is further disproved by the C-value paradox under which many relatively simple organisms have genomes much larger than more complex organisms. For example, a certain flower from Japan has a genome 50 times longer than the human genome, and quite a few amphibians have genomes 10 times bigger than the human genome. 

There is no blueprint or recipe or program for making a human in human DNA, and there is nothing intelligent enough in a human womb to read and execute such immensely complicated instructions if they happened to exist. So the physical origin of each full-sized human body is a miracle far beyond our understanding.  

We lack any understanding of how the supremely hierarchical organization of an adult human body arises. Consider all the different levels of organization. Subatomic particles are organized into atoms, which are organized into amino acids, which are organized into protein molecules, which are organized into protein complexes, which are organized into organelles, which are organized into cells, which are organized into tissues, which are organized into organs, which are organized into organ systems, which are organized into the human body.  There is nothing in a speck-sized human egg that explains how most of those different levels of organization could arise. 

We take for granted the miracle of a speck-sized egg growing into a human body a million times more organized than such a cell. Why is that? Mainly because it is something that happens most of the time. It seems that we will not be astonished by any transformation, no matter how inexplicable it may seem, as long as it happens most of the time.  Imagine if you lived on a planet in which you could plant acorns in the ground, and they would grow into three-story houses complete with electricity and running water. You would not think such a thing was very marvelous if it happened most of the times that acorns were planted in the ground, and if such a thing had been happening for as long as your race could remember.  The arising of a full-sized human body from a speck-sized fertilized egg millions of times less complex and organized is a marvel a thousand times more impressive than a three-story house with electricity and running water arising from an acorn planted in the ground.  We do not at all understand how this marvel happens. We do not understand the physical origin of any adult human body. In a section entitled  "Developmental Biology," a paper by a University of Oxford biologist confesses, "We...rarely understand what is going on in any detailed way."

#5: No, They Didn't Ever Observe Macroevolution

Macroevolution is the idea that there can naturally occur dramatic transitions such as a transition from ape-like organisms to the human species, a transition from only aquatic life to life that lives out of the water, a transition from one-celled organisms to large visible multicellular organisms such as trilobites, or a transition from non-flying organisms to flying organisms.  An extremely important fact to remember is that humans have never observed any type of macroevolution. In the thousands of years of recorded history, humans have never observed the natural appearance of any dramatically new type of organism that never existed earlier in human history. Things such as new breeds of dogs produced by artificial selection are not true examples of macroevolution, and also not examples of natural evolution. 

#6: No, They Didn't Ever Develop a Theory Giving a Credible Explanation of How Macroevolution Could Naturally Occur

Scientists lack any credible theory of how there could occur macroevolution, a natural transition from creatures of one type to some vastly different type with greatly superior abilities. Darwinism fails to credibly explain any large scale transition such as a change from microscopic life to visible multicellular life, a transition from land-based animals to flying animals, or a transition from ape-like animals to humans. The claim that Darwinism explains such things is an unwarranted socially constructed triumphal legend that is a belief dogma of a conformist belief community of scientists. Below are some relevant quotes by scientists:

• "The origins of major morphological novelties remain unsolved...No one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial." Keith Stewart Thomson,  "Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem"
• "Selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms...Evolution of a few flowers on a hillside is reasonably explained by mutation and selection; it stretches logic to explain the millions of extremely diverse species seen currently and in the fossil record...Microevolution is probabilistically realistic; macroevolution is not, and this is documented empirically."  -- Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender, "Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive," 2022, (link). 

No, accidents don't make complex inventions

#7: No, They Never Did Anything to Explain How Humans Can Think, Learn, Instantly Recall or Remember for a Lifetime

The table below discusses some human mental capabilities, common and uncommon, and why they cannot be explained as being caused by brain activity. 

Human Mental Capability or Mental Characteristic or Mental Phenomenon	Why It Cannot Be Explained as a Brain Effect or Explained Under a “Brains Create Minds” Assumption
Humans have a unified sense of self, which usually persists with great constancy throughout a human's life.	There is no reason why the fluctuating stream of neuron electrical activity or chemical activity (billions of little microscopic events every second) should ever give rise to a unified sense of self.
Humans can instantly form new long-term memories after a single exposure to sensory phenomena (as you can see by the fact that you will have a good chance of remembering the plot of some movie you saw only once).	There is no theory of memory storage that properly accounts for the instant creation of new memories. Prevailing ideas such as “synapse strengthening” describe a process that would never work instantaneously, and would require at least several minutes for the formation of a new memory.
After hearing a single word or seeing a single image, humans can instantly remember something they learned very long ago.	Instant recall is totally inexplicable under the idea of a brain storage of memories. From human work in constructing computers that can instantly retrieve information, humans know the kind of things a brain would need to have to be capable of instant recall: things such as indexes or a coordinate system or a position notation system. The brain has no such things. The very strong slowing factor of synaptic delays should make instant recall of a brain-stored memory impossible.
Humans can remember very well things they learned 50 or more years ago, and they can remember very well things that they experienced 50 or more years ago.	The preservation of memories for more than a few weeks is inexplicable under the idea of a brain storage of memories. The proteins that make up synapses (claimed to be a storage place of memories) have an average lifetime of only a few weeks. There is no place in the brain that is a credible site for the storage of memories lasting decades.
Humans can form new abstract ideas.	Nothing that we know about the brain can explain the phenomenon of abstract idea creation.
Humans can form memories of very diverse types: episodic memories, sensory memories, emotional memories, physical skill memories, and memories of learned information of many different types (verbal, visual, musical, algorithmic,  historical and conceptual).	No one has ever found any credible evidence of memory information in brain tissue; we cannot read any memories from dead people;  and no one has any credible theory of how episodic memories or information learned in school could be translated into neural states or synapse states. Neither in the genome nor in the brain is there any sign of any neural code by which memories could be  translated into neural states or synapse states; but if there was such a code, it would have a massive "footprint" that would have resulted in its detection decades ago.
A human can fall deeply in love with another human, and stay in love with that person for years; or a human may develop some bitter hatred that persists for many years.	Being subject to such high levels of rapid molecular turnover and rapid structural remodeling on the low levels of synapse proteins and dendritic spines, a brain has no characteristics that would explain stable, long-lasting emotions persisting for many years.
Humans are capable of extremely deep philosophical thinking and very complex mathematical thinking.	Nothing in a brain can explain such a thing, nor is there any kind of “natural selection” reason why humans would have such capabilities, which do nothing to improve human survival.
Very many humans (as many as 10% to 25% or more) have  out-of-body experiences in which they have kind of floated out of their bodies, and seen their own bodies from a position above their bodies.	This phenomenon is completely inexplicable under claims that your brain is the source of your mind, and the phenomenon directly contradicts such claims, strongly suggesting they are false.
Humans can form beliefs that persist for decades.	There is no understanding of how a brain could cause the formation of long-lasting beliefs, nor is there any evidence that beliefs can be  changed by any surgery on brains or by taking drugs that modify the chemistry of brains. For example, there is no pill or surgery that will cause you to switch from being a Christian to being an agnostic, or cause you to switch from Republican political beliefs to some other political views.
Some "math savant" humans with "hypercalculia" (such as Zerah Colburn and Jacques Inaudi) can or could do very complex and accurate math calculations "in their heads" at extremely high speeds.	The unreliability of synaptic transmission (in which there is only a 50% or smaller chance of a signal crossing a synapse) should prevent very accurate and complex mental calculation if it was performed in your brain. While some signals (such as pain signals and sensory signals) can travel at fast speeds, synaptic delays should mean that the average brain signal moves too slowly to allow for very fast thinking.
Human memories and acquired knowledge are often well preserved after half of a brain is surgically removed in hemispherectomy operations to stop very frequent epileptic seizures.	This result is very much inconsistent with claims that memories are stored in the brain.
Humans can recall with 100% accuracy very large bodies of memorized information, such as when Hamlet actors or Wagnerian tenors recall perfectly all words of their very lengthy roles, or when Islamic scholars recall every word of their holy book.	A variety of very severe sources of signal noise in the brain (discussed here and here) should prevent any such thing from happening if memories are brain stored.
As discussed here, here, here, here and here, we have two hundred years of accounts of people (particularly hypnotized subjects or subjects in a trance) who displayed clairvoyance, often being able to accurately describe places they had never visited or heard about.	This phenomenon is completely inexplicable under the hypothesis that the brain is the source of the human mind.
There are hundreds of cases of normal people who saw an apparition of someone who died, and then later learned the person had died at the same time of the apparition sighting.	Such a reality is not explained by any theory that brains create our minds, and is not credibly explained by any theory of hallucination, as each case would require a fantastically improbable coincidence.
There are many cases of the same apparition being seen by multiple witnesses at the same time.	Such a reality is not explained by any theory that brains create our minds, and is not credibly explained by any theory of hallucination, as each such case would require a fantastically improbable coincidence.
Some humans who have lost the great majority of their brains because of diseases such as hydrocephalus have average or above-average intelligence, as documented by Lorber.	This reality is completely inexplicable under current assumptions that the mind is merely the product of the brain.
When the corpus callosum (the band of nerve fibers connecting the two brain hemispheres) is severed,  this does not result in split-personality persons with two selves. There still remains a single unified self.	This result is the exact opposite of what we would expect from the idea that the brain makes the mind.
Some rare humans such as autistic savants have displayed powers of memory many times greater than an average human, such as Kim Peek who knew very well the contents of 10,000 + books he had read, savants who can play back perfectly any song they hear, a person such as Stephen Wiltshire who can make accurate drawings of skylines he has seen only once,  and those with hyperthymesia who can remember almost every day of their adult life.	Such effects are inexplicable under the "brains make minds" idea, since the people displaying such abilities do not have larger brains, and sometimes have severely damaged brains.

#8: No, They Didn't Ever Figure Out the Composition of the Universe

Scientists have long published "Composition of the universe" pie charts in which they boast about understanding what percent of the universe is regular matter, what percent is dark matter, and what percent is dark energy. Such charts have always been mere speculations. Scientists are just engaging in the wildest of wild guesses whenever they claim to know such things. No one has ever directly observed either dark matter or dark energy. Neither dark matter nor dark energy has any place in the Standard Model of Physics. No one has ever been able to identify either dark matter or dark energy with any specific known particle that has been discovered or observed.