Why evolution wont work and natural selection will never be proven.

[Mattao]

I had this very idea in this forum and wanted to talk about it with other creationist.
Evolutionist are welcomed to chime in and I welcome anyone who wants to discuss the idea to discuss it.
Thank you.

How smart animals are has no bearing on where they fit in the tree of life and their purpose for fitting in any particular branch of the tree of life is the reason evolution couldn't work.

Whether it be, instinct and something like how its mother smells that makes it bond to its mother and recognize what it is through that bond or being taught and learning the necessary skills to survive and the process of understanding a skill is what binds a thing to it's mother.
It's whatever means any particular species goes through to recognize as self, and to understand who they are is a bonding experience that takes place between them and whatever is teaching them how to survive in the world.
Understanding who they are, its the thing that keeps them in that particular branch of the tree of life.

You take an orangutang out of its environment and teach it how to paint art, or spend money, or build a house, and by extension get it to bond as human, its not going to be able to pass what it was taught to other orangutangs because it doesn't think its an orangutang any longer and will treat other orangutangs as if they're outside of its species.

Thats what separates us from them. We have the ability to understand we're human no matter what and animals will instill their understanding of self on whatever is instinctive to it. Vis a vis, how it is taught to cope with the world and who or what teaches it.

It's why they dont remember long enough to evolve, because if they believe they're something other than what God intended them to be they're not going to associate with their own species, they're going to associate with whatever taught them to survive and the knowledge will be lost with the individual because it no longer associated with its own species.
What separates people from everything else and always will, is our ability to recognize ourselves as human no matter what, when everything else on the planet has to recognize self through whatever means they go through to understanding survival.

It's why natural selection has not been proven and never will.

Thanks.

 

[sfs]

I don't see how this says anything about the truth or falsity of evolution. According to biology, species change over time and slowly (usually) give rise to other species. What does that have to do with whether animals can recognize themselves as members of a species? What you said is also not true, by the way: plenty of animals have been raised by humans and then been reintroduced to the wild, where they live with other members of their species.

Oh, and natural selection has been observed plenty of times, in the lab and in the wild.

 

[Mattao]

I don't see how this says anything about the truth or falsity of evolution. According to biology, species change over time and slowly (usually) give rise to other species. What does that have to do with whether animals can recognize themselves as members of a species? What you said is also not true, by the way: plenty of animals have been raised by humans and then been reintroduced to the wild, where they live with other members of their species.

Oh, and natural selection has been observed plenty of times, in the lab and in the wild.

Natural selection has been observed to an "extent."
Fruit fly is still a fruit fly, fox is still a fox, dog still dog. There may be many different breeds of dogs and many different flys but at the end of the day no matter how many generations of fruitflys you create in a lab, its still a friutfly.

That thing about animals evolving slowly over time has not been observed, (can it be?) of course not!
It was selected from "literally" millions of theories that have no evidence to back them up simply because evolutionist couldnt figure out why they cant see natural selection at work.

Use to be in science, it wasnt a thing until it was proven.
If Albert Einstein had to prove that light bends before his theory was taken seriously, then evolutionist shouldnt be able to jerk their duties.

And oh yeah!
Plenty of animals have been raised in captivity and reintroduced to the wild. So what?
How does that say anything about how the animal thought of being introduced to its own species again.
And not only that, biologist or, when someone is in the know, the captors try and limit human interaction with the animals that are being raised as a rescue.
Unless it's a stupid zoo or it cant be helped, like you're raising an elephant and its to big to use a puppet on.

 

[sfs]

Natural selection has been observed to an "extent."
Fruit fly is still a fruit fly, fox is still a fox, dog still dog. There may be many different breeds of dogs and many different flys but at the end of the day no matter how many generations of fruitflys you create in a lab, its still a friutfly.

That thing about animals evolving slowly over time has not been observed, (can it be?) of course not!
It was selected from "literally" millions of theories that have no evidence to back them up simply because evolutionist couldnt figure out why they cant see natural selection at work.

Use to be in science, it wasnt a thing until it was proven.
If Albert Einstein had to prove that light bends before his theory was taken seriously, then evolutionist shouldnt be able to jerk their duties.

Biologists support their hypotheses in the same way that physicists do: by using them to explain and predict observations. The idea that all species are related to each other is supported by an amazing range of data in all kinds of areas. You don't have to actually watch one species change into quite a different one over millions of years to show that it's happened: DNA demonstrates the relatedness of species just as easily as it demonstrates the relatedness of two humans. A paternity test will tell you who the father of a baby is, even if you didn't watch the baby being conceived.

You've got the story backwards, in fact: scientists established that common descent was true long before most of them accepted that natural selection was involved in any important way.

And oh yeah!
Plenty of animals have been raised in captivity and reintroduced to the wild. So what?

You said that animals raised by humans would treat other members of its species as if they belonged to different species. That is not true. And I still have no idea what this has to do with evolution.

 

[Mattao]

Biologists support their hypotheses in the same way that physicists do: by using them to explain and predict observations. The idea that all species are related to each other is supported by an amazing range of data in all kinds of areas. You don't have to actually watch one species change into quite a different one over millions of years to show that it's happened: DNA demonstrates the relatedness of species just as easily as it demonstrates the relatedness of two humans. A paternity test will tell you who the father of a baby is, even if you didn't watch the baby being conceived.

You've got the story backwards, in fact: scientists established that common descent was true long before most of them accepted that natural selection was involved in any important way.

The DNA found is "suggested" it isn't fact. Not any where near as you say it is. It should work that way hypothetically and some minute traces that "suggest" the same DNA have been found in places that they necessarily shouldnt be (unless what Im saying is true) but that doesn't prove DNA as strongly as you claim it does.
Just like everything else you've pointed out. It's all "suggested". none of it is fact. It doesn't really matter how many different times you see something suggested, with DNA or in nature. It isnt fact until it's proven to be true.


And evolution couldn't work with out natural selection. So it doesn't really matter in what order they figured out how it works. It is still something that needs to work for the whole of evolution to work.

You said that animals raised by humans would treat other members of its species as if they belonged to different species. That is not true. And I still have no idea what this has to do with evolution.

There are many different scenarios in which an animal can be raised by a human. I have one that has been fully documented and can be viewed at any time on Youtube that shows that an orangutang didnt see its fellow orangutangs as equals and within its species, having considered itself full on human.
From the time the orangutang was taken in by the researchers who trained it until it was placed in a zoo with other orangutangs and beyond. Where we not only see how it was raised by its trainers but how it acts after its introduced to other orangutangs.
Do you have anything like such a video on youtube that shows what you're saying? Something that shows us just as much of the animal reacting to people as it does it's own species.

My idea would show why natural selection doesn't work and if natural selection doesnt work neither does evolution.

 

[sfs]

The DNA found is "suggested" it isn't fact. Not any where near as you say it is. It should work that way hypothetically and some minute traces that "suggest" the same DNA have been found in places that they necessarily shouldnt be (unless what Im saying is true) but that doesn't prove DNA as strongly as you claim it does.
Just like everything else you've pointed out. It's all "suggested". none of it is fact. It doesn't really matter how many different times you see something suggested, with DNA or in nature. It isnt fact until it's proven to be true.

I told you how science is done: scientists test ideas against data. The idea of common descent has been tested over and over again, and has been highly successful. That is why it is accepted by scientists throughout the world, including the overwhelming majority of Christian biologists. This is particularly true for genetic data. Creationism, on the other hand, either predicts nothing or predicts things that aren't true. For example, common descent predicts that human chromosome 2 must be a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, something that can be (and has been) tested in DNA. It tells us why endogenous retroviral insertions are shared between humans and chimpanzees, and why differences between human and chimpanzee DNA tend to be changes between two purines or between two pyrimidines, rather than between a purine and a pyrimidine.

Do you really think you know how to do genetics better than geneticists?

And evolution couldn't work with out natural selection. So it doesn't really matter in what order they figured out how it works. It is still something that needs to work for the whole of evolution to work.

This is also incorrect. Evolution occurs with or without natural selection shaping new traits. Genetic drift changes organisms even when selection isn't acting.

There are many different scenarios in which an animal can be raised by a human. I have one that has been fully documented and can be viewed at any time on Youtube that shows that an orangutang didnt see its fellow orangutangs as equals and within its species, having considered itself full on human.
From the time the orangutang was taken in by the researchers who trained it until it was placed in a zoo with other orangutangs and beyond. Where we not only see how it was raised by its trainers but how it acts after its introduced to other orangutangs.
Do you have anything like such a video on youtube that shows what you're saying? Something that shows us just as much of the animal reacting to people as it does it's own species.

Does this gorilla think he's human or gorilla?

My idea would show why natural selection doesn't work and if natural selection doesnt work neither does evolution.

Your idea doesn't seem to have anything to do with natural selection.

 

[Mattao]

I told you how science is done: scientists test ideas against data. The idea of common descent has been tested over and over again, and has been highly successful. That is why it is accepted by scientists throughout the world, including the overwhelming majority of Christian biologists. This is particularly true for genetic data. Creationism, on the other hand, either predicts nothing or predicts things that aren't true. For example, common descent predicts that human chromosome 2 must be a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, something that can be (and has been) tested in DNA. It tells us why endogenous retroviral insertions are shared between humans and chimpanzees, and why differences between human and chimpanzee DNA tend to be changes between two purines or between two pyrimidines, rather than between a purine and a pyrimidine.

Do you really think you know how to do genetics better than geneticists?

No of course not, but I could ask you the same question. Are you in fact a biologist?
I'll concede to this, because I really dont want to get into the kind of extensive argument this can turn into and I really dont know as much as I should to have this discussion but thats not to say you do either. But I really dont know, you seem knowledgeable now but that doesnt mean anything.

This is also incorrect. Evolution occurs with or without natural selection shaping new traits. Genetic drift changes organisms even when selection isn't acting.

Genetic drift is not proven. It is possible and can be a part of evolution if it works, but by percentage it has shown not to be reliable. But that again is a deeper more involved conversation then I am willing to have because I have not gathered any data to support my own idea.

Does this gorilla think he's human or gorilla?

Yes, I think he does think he's human.
It looks to me like he was forced into a situation he didnt want to be in, given the affection he showed his previous caretaker.

 

[sfs]

No of course not, but I could ask you the same question. Are you in fact a biologist?

Yes. I'm a geneticist and I've spent years studying natural selection -- in humans, in malaria parasites, and most recently in viruses.

Genetic drift is not proven. It is possible and can be a part of evolution if it works, but by percentage it has shown not to be reliable. But that again is a deeper more involved conversation then I am willing to have because I have not gathered any data to support my own idea.

Genetic drift is absolutely inevitable in any population that isn't infinite in size. Do you know what genetic drift is?

 

[Mattao]

Yes. I'm a geneticist and I've spent years studying natural selection -- in humans, in malaria parasites, and most recently in viruses.

Ha! Snuck in a ringer!
Thank you for coming by.

Genetic drift is absolutely inevitable in any population that isn't infinite in size. Do you know what genetic drift is?

Yes, its based on math. It's more to do with smaller creatures that are confined.
You brought up parasites above and viruses so my guess is you're studding Genetic drift right now and why you brought it up.
Which isnt fair because Im no where near a lab in knowledge or practice or in any other sense.
It's when a species overwhelms another and their DNA get mixed up.

 

[sfs]

Yes, its based on math. It's more to do with smaller creatures that are confined.
You brought up parasites above and viruses so my guess is you're studding Genetic drift right now and why you brought it up.
Which isnt fair because Im no where near a lab in knowledge or practice or in any other sense.
It's when a species overwhelms another and their DNA get mixed up.

No, genetic drift is just the fact that the frequency of genetic variants changes from generation to generation in a population by chance. For example, variants for blue eyes and for brown eyes could change over time, even if there was no selective advantage to either color. This means that species can change genetically (which is what biologists mean by "evolve") over time even without natural selection.

 

[Willtor]

Ha! Snuck in a ringer!
Thank you for coming by.


Yes, its based on math. It's more to do with smaller creatures that are confined.
You brought up parasites above and viruses so my guess is you're studding Genetic drift right now and why you brought it up.
Which isnt fair because Im no where near a lab in knowledge or practice or in any other sense.
It's when a species overwhelms another and their DNA get mixed up.

Their DNA does not get mixed up. Whether the orangutan in your example thinks it's human or not, its DNA is that of an orangutan.

 

[BobRyan]

It's why they dont remember long enough to evolve, because if they believe they're something other than what God intended them to be they're not going to associate with their own species, they're going to associate with whatever taught them to survive and the knowledge will be lost with the individual because it no longer associated with its own species.
What separates people from everything else and always will, is our ability to recognize ourselves as human no matter what, when everything else on the planet has to recognize self through whatever means they go through to understanding survival.

It's why natural selection has not been proven and never will.

Thanks.

I agree that animals don't teach their offspring that they are not animals.

Natural Selection is limited by the fact that it can only "select" from what is already there and what is already there can only be selected by what is expressed in phenotype. Reptile has to be the bird to select for the bird.

Its a form of hopeful monster that is based on mythology and hope.

Meanwhile - bacteria -- remain ... bacteria.