KINDS and ADAPTATION

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 208 by DrNoGods]

Other than the obvious evidence that humans exist, they evolved from apes (surely you are not contesting that in 2019!).

this is 2019, not 1919, Piltdown man was debunked long ago, few still believe humans evolved from apes- (and not very many outside of academia bought it then either)

Plus, where is your "designer", and why did it continually design defects?

example?

[John Human]

[Replying to post 207 by John Human]

In a nutshell, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the human knee joint, with sixteen "critical characteristics" that must all be present for the knee to function properly, came about by design.

Why use such a simple example as a knee joint? How about an eye?

Because we were talking about human evolution, and the example of locking knees is crucial to proto-humans being able to stand up straight.

It doesn't matter how complex something is or how many parts it has ... if slow development of the various parts shows incremental benefit at each step then natural selection will ensure that that step hangs around because it provides a benefit.

You are welcome to provide supporting evidence if you want to indulge the speculation that “slow incremental steps� can explain the appearance of locking knee joints. More generally, could you please provide a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.�

Here, after implying that SPECIATION happens by "natural selection," you postulate a beneficial mutation causing a variation WITHIN a species, as opposed to the very different case of a speciation event resulting in a new species that can’t mate with a member of the parent species to produce offspring. And I suspect that the general point about human knee design (couldn't happen randomly) applies the transition from fins to legs.

It isn't a "very different case" ... it is a matter of degree.

Variation WITHIN a species allows new traits to be passed around the gene pool. Speciation creates an entirely new gene pool. That’s the difference.

You seem to be falling into the common trap theists fall into where they create this artificial distinction between small changes over relatively short periods of time (so-called "micro" evolution), and larger changes over longer periods of time (so-called "macro" evolution). But there is no such distinction in the real world. Enough small changes can result in speciation and larger changes. Ring species shows this, as does fish to amphibians, apes to humans, etc.

Let me be clear here…

Enough small changes can result in speciation and larger changes. Ring species shows this, as does fish to amphibians, apes to humans, etc.

You present groundless speculation as established fact. Once again, could you please provide a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.�

(3) Therefore (and here’s your error): Natural selection (as opposed to God or a space-alien biologist or an ineffable "species spirit" that creates a new species so it can have a baby spirit, or who-knows-what) “drove the process� (your words – another metaphor) of the speciation event(s) that occurred on the way from fish to amphibians. You are arguing beyond the available evidence.

We don't just have fish and then amphibians with nothing in between and are making a giant leap of faith in saying that amphibians evolved from fish.

I never said that, and I never implied that. I chose my words to allow for various explanations of a deduced phenomenon (evolution), the cause of which has never been adequately explained. My point, once again, is that “natural selection� doesn’t work to explain the speciation event(s) that happened on the way from fish to amphibians.

Your fallacy is assuming that this event didn't happen via evolution by natural selection and then trying to discount it with only partial information.

You seem to be asserting that it is a fallacy to assume that “natural selection� can’t account for speciation events, even though neither you nor anyone else has provided a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.� In other words, you seem to be asserting that it a fallacy to doubt something that has never been proven. ](*,)

Surely you can appreciate that a beneficial DNA change could have some consequences in terms of survival and reproduction (ie. improve them).

Well yes, I’ve acknowledged that repeatedly: the process behind so-called “natural selection� can account for variations WITHIN a species, but it fails to account for speciation events that result in new species whose members are unable to procreate with members of the parent species. You seem to be assiduously avoiding this point.

You simply don't have any supporting evidence for your presumption that “natural selection� was the causal agent for the emergence of modern humans.

Other than the obvious evidence that humans exist, they evolved from apes (surely you are not contesting that in 2019!).

You falsely conflate “evolution� with “natural selection,� which is the only apparent basis for your insinuation about what I am contesting. I hope you will agree that honest inability to comprehend is different from subtle and deceptive debating tricks. Once again, could you please provide a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.� I’m waiting…

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 209 by Guy Threepwood]

this is 2019, not 1919, Piltdown man was debunked long ago, few still believe humans evolved from apes- (and not very many outside of academia bought it then either).

Piltdown man was a hoax. Yet you bring this up repeatedly as it if has something to do with human evolution. It is completely irrelevant to the discission. And the huge majority of educated people, who don't ignore science because of their antiquated religious beliefs, believe that humans evolved from apes. It is the majority view, and it has been shown conclusively to be correct. Anyone who denies it in 2019 is no different than a flat earther.

example?

Every kid born with a debilitating birth defect. Or are you going to say that never happens and reference some other irrelevant historical hoax?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 210 by John Human]

Because we were talking about human evolution, and the example of locking knees is crucial to proto-humans being able to stand up straight.

But the point still stands (no pun intended). Complex structures can be built via evolution though many small steps over long periods of time, whether it be knees or eyes.

More generally, could you please provide a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.�

Homo sapiens ... via a long and bushy evolutionary tree where successive improvements in body shape and brain size/structure conferred advantages that natural selection ensured became fixed in the population. There are countless other examples of course, but that one is particularly relevant, and clear.

Variation WITHIN a species allows new traits to be passed around the gene pool. Speciation creates an entirely new gene pool. That’s the difference.

And you don't seem to understand how this happens within evolution. Tell me why ring species exist when, according to you, this isn't possible? Speciation is perfectly compatible with evolution and predicted by it. This isn't a mystery.

You present groundless speculation as established fact. Once again, could you please provide a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.�

Homo sapiens ... see above. Try Google for thousands more examples. This isn't groundless speculation ... it is called the theory of evolution which nearly everyone but religious zealots accept as the correct explanation for how life diversifies on Earth. It has been demonstrated to be correct ... no speculation required.

My point, once again, is that “natural selection� doesn’t work to explain the speciation event(s) that happened on the way from fish to amphibians.

Sure it does, you just don't want to accept it. Evolution by natural selection isn't a hypothesis anymore ... it is a theory, which means the original hypothesis has been confirmed via observations sufficiently thoroughly that it has become a theory. It explains speciation perfectly well, and natural selection just describes the process whereby beneficial DNA changes "win out" in a population. Cumulative changes can result in speciation, with natural selection working the whole time.

You seem to be asserting that it is a fallacy to assume that “natural selection� can’t account for speciation events, even though neither you nor anyone else has provided a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.� In other words, you seem to be asserting that it a fallacy to doubt something that has never been proven.

You obviously don't understand what natural selection is. Evolution by natural selection is a formal scientific theory. That alone means it has been confirmed via observations, experiments, etc. To say that "it has never been proven" is nonsense. If you or anyone else could falsify it then it would no longer be an accepted scientific theory. But no one has done that yet. It works and explains observations better than any other explanation yet devised. You can claim otherwise because you don't like it, but that doesn't negate the last 150 years of observation and analysis that shows it is indeed valid.

but it fails to account for speciation events that result in new species whose members are unable to procreate with members of the parent species. You seem to be assiduously avoiding this point.

I'm not avoiding it. I'm repeating that you are dead wrong in your statements that natural selection cannot lead to new species. Evolution by natural selection has been demonstrated to be correct, and your objections don't change that. Again, explain how ring species exist when, according to you, this is impossible. Or do you deny that ring species do exist?

You falsely conflate “evolution� with “natural selection,� which is the only apparent basis for your insinuation about what I am contesting. I hope you will agree that honest inability to comprehend is different from subtle and deceptive debating tricks. Once again, could you please provide a single example of a species that has been proven to have evolved through “natural selection.� I’m waiting…

I have put forth Homo sapiens several times as an example, in this post and others. But you've ignored it. And the common description is "Evolution by Natural Selection" (note the word "by"). I have never conflated the terms evolution and natural selection or suggested they are the same thing. But you've suggested that the mechanism behind how DNA changes occur is somehow connected to natural selection (eg. your first ps in post 207). So I've tried to explain that natural selection does not have anything whatsoever with HOW the DNA changes occur. It only comes into play AFTER this has happened and describes the process by which beneficial DNA changes persist in a population. Sufficient change can result in speciation, as observed in nature.

Explain ring species if natural selection plays no role in speciation as you erroneously keep claiming.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Wow, reading those papers were a worthless 20 min of my life.

Highlights from the first paper.

Fusion of telomeres is a rare occurrence in normal lymphoblasts and fibroblasts, although it has been observed in 20-30% of the cells of certain tumors, where it appears to be nonclonal (25-29).

This is exactly what I said was the case. Also notice he sites no examples of healthy telomere to telomere fusion. Because their are not any.

The telomere-telomere fusion at region 2q13 must have been accompanied or followed by inactivation or elimination of one of the ancestral centromeres, as well as by events that stabilize the fusion point. Hybridization studies suggest that there is a remnant of an ancestral centromere at band 2q21, which is consistent with the telomeric fusion proposed here (A.B., unpublished data).

More wishful thinking.


From one of the abstracts!!!

With this in mind, we discuss the nature and possible significance of rare chromosome fusion events thought to involve telomeres, particularly those fusion events found in some tumors.

Also from last paper. (that was a worthless 20 min of my life to read those papers)

So Denisovans and probably Neanderthals had the fusion and chimpanzees do not. As we are able to sequence more and more ancient DNA, we may get lucky and actually pinpoint when the transition happened. Admittedly this would require rather a lot of luck…

Yes we know that humans have 46 chromosome and chimps have 48. Wow that is real informative. And then we have the faith statement. But we may get lucky.

Always wanting to move away from fact and go into fiction. People can believe anything they want. But I believe it is called faith when you believe something has happened or will happen when all the observations and laws of nature say it cannot happen.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 213 by EarthScienceguy]

Wow, reading those papers were a worthless 20 min of my life.

That was just a tiny sample of some representative papers. If you want to waste another several hours of your life try reading a comprehensive list of all the peer-reviewed, published in real science journals, papers which conclude that the chromosome 2 fusion is legitimate. Then, after you've done that (you know ... a proper review of the literature) explain how everyone else has it wrong when the only support for your position is your personal opinion that it didn't happen. All you did was cherry pick some sentences and ignored the main conclusions of the papers and articles.

Of course you can find every creationist website with arguments against it, but that is driven by their "statement of faith" that anything contradicting the biblical narrative is, by definition, wrong. That isn't science by any measure. These websites start with the assumption that humans are special creatures created by a god (in his image if you are a Christian), then produce total pseudoscience against any real science that disproves that position. They can't acknowledge that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor because it would violate their statement of faith, and rule #1 is that this cannot be tolerated.

So until you can produce some real science results to show that the chromosome 2 fusion is not viable you are only spouting your personal opinion. I'm sure the legitimate science journals would welcome your in-depth paper on why the chromosome 2 fusion event could not have happened as described (ie. a fusion of ape chromosomes 12 and 13), and your alternative explanation since something obviously did happen along the way from ape to human that reduced the chromosome number from 48 to 46. What's your alternative explanation?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 214 by DrNoGods]

You have proven nothing. I told you many times that I do not deal in stories and I am not the only scientist that feels this way.

Across the world the descent away from evolution is taking place. Views in support of evolution are becoming archaic and not trustworthy.

David Berlinski
Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.



“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�



Dr. Michael Egnor professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook
We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things.

Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.

Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry
Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution.

Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University
Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work.

Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry
I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science.

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.

Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry
Darwin’s theory needs to be questioned, challenged, and examined in order to maintain its scientific integrity and to protect it from becoming dogma.

Dr. Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute and Maxwell Visiting Professor of Molecular Biology, Biola University
“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical. The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.�

Dr. Marcos Eberlin, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory.
As a (bio)chemist I become most skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode and protect its information, such as the U x T and ribose x deoxyribose exchanges for the DNA/RNA pair and the translation of its 4-base language to the 20AA language of life that absolutely relies on a diversity of exquisite molecular machines made by the products of such translation forming a chicken-and-egg dilemma that evolution has no chance at all to answer.�

Dr. Yvonne Boldt, Ph.D. Microbiology, Univ. of Minnesota
“When Darwinian proponents claim there is no controversy regarding the cohesiveness of the scientific evidence for evolution as creator, they are merely expressing a heartfelt desire. … There is a growing contingent of scientists who have found the evidence for Darwinian evolution wanting, and who are ready and willing to debate Darwinists on scientific grounds.�


Evolution is like a house of cards that is crashing down.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 215 by EarthScienceguy]

I told you many times that I do not deal in stories and I am not the only scientist that feels this way.

Stories? And "only scientist"? You appear to be a creation "scientist" and therefore not a real scientist, but listing a few minority opinions is meaningless. And David Berlinski ... really? Again you are changing the subject to evolution in general when the topic is the chromosome 2 fusion event. This is your standard procedure though and you do it every time ... evade the question and change the topic.

What is your alternative explanation for why humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48? Do you have one, or are you just parroting creationist websites as usual and simply don't believe it because it contradicts biblical mythology? For someone who just stated "I do not deal in stories" ... you evidently have bought the biblical creation story hook, line and sinker.

Evolution is like a house of cards that is crashing down.

Only in the eyes of nonscientist creationists and other religious people who can't accept the evidence because it destroys the idea that humans are special creatures created by a god. The general process of evolution by natural selection has been verified as a valid mechanism for diversification of life on Earth, even if every detail has not been worked out yet (as with most scientific theories). Humans evolved from a great ape ancestor, and the process by which this happened is evolution by natural selection. We have sufficient evidence to know this is how it happened, and a few minority opinions organized by creationists doesn't change the facts. You certainly do deal in "stories" ... they are the entire basis of your position.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Stories? And "only scientist"? You appear to be a creation "scientist" and therefore not a real scientist, but listing a few minority opinions is meaningless. And David Berlinski ... really? Again you are changing the subject to evolution in general when the topic is the chromosome 2 fusion event. This is your standard procedure though and you do it every time ... evade the question and change the topic.

No, I am still waiting on an answer to how could a telomere to telomere fusion not cause cancer and the death of an organism, because that is what we see today. None of the papers you submitted suggested how this could be possible either.

Besides for the above where is all of the chump or chimp satellite DNA. Which is a hallmark of all fusion sites in mammals. Care to take a crack at that one.

Chimpanzee chromosome end caps are rich in a type of satellite DNA specific to chimpanzee subtelomeric regions, including the ends of chromosomes 2A and 2B (Ventura et al. 2012).Yet none of this chimp end cap satDNA is located in the human genome, much less on chromosome 2 near the fusion site

What is your alternative explanation for why humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48? Do you have one, or are you just parroting creationist websites as usual and simply don't believe it because it contradicts biblical mythology? For someone who just stated "I do not deal in stories" ... you evidently have bought the biblical creation story hook, line and sinker.

The problem is that fusion could not have happen at this position. The fact that the fusion site is located inside a possibly important and functional gene is inconsistent with the hypothesis that it arose from some sort of major genetic aberration, such as a chromosomal fusion.

Only in the eyes of non scientist creationists and other religious people who can't accept the evidence because it destroys the idea that humans are special creatures created by a god. The general process of evolution by natural selection has been verified as a valid mechanism for diversification of life on Earth, even if every detail has not been worked out yet (as with most scientific theories).

More faith statements, eh. And that is not true about most scientific theories. In fact they are not called theories until every detail has been worked out. If theories are contrary to observations they also have to give reasons on why the theory describes some contrary to the the observations.

Humans evolved from a great ape ancestor, and the process by which this happened is evolution by natural selection. We have sufficient evidence to know this is how it happened, and a few minority opinions organized by creationists doesn't change the facts. You certainly do deal in "stories" ... they are the entire basis of your position.

Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection can be observed. Both creationist and evolutionist believe that natural selection happens. The driving force of evolution is the random duplication and then the random mutation of of genes in the genome. The deadly mutations are said to be selected out but natural selection is not the driving force of change.


Take for example this punitive fusion site.

Problems that need solutions.

1. The sequence was only 800 base pairs instead of the expected 10000 base pairs that was expected. That is only 8% of what it should be.

2. The fusion site is (or was) highly degenerate meaning. It does not match up with normal mutation rates.

3. The fusion site does not contain satellite DNA. There is always satellite DNA in fusion sites of mammals. A problem the fusion site discoverers openly acknowledged in their initial 1991 paper.

4. The allege fusion site is in the mist of active genes. Telomeres do not contain genes.

5. The gene neighborhood surrounding the alleged fusion lacks overall synteny (similar gene order) to the chimp genome and does not support a fusion scenario in any way. This was first noticed in 2002 by secular researchers, although the chimp genome had not been well sequenced at that time.

6. The alleged fusion sequence is located in the middle of a functional gene. It is not a fossil remnant of a chromosomal accident at all but an important DNA regulatory feature called a promoter (genetic switch) inside a highly expressed gene.


There is no way that this fusion site could have happened unless you are saying at some point in the past humans or chimps did not have blood running in their veins because the production of blood cells are in this part of chromosome 2.

These problems were known by researchers but were never addressed. This is not the way normal science works.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 217 by EarthScienceguy]

No, I am still waiting on an answer to how could a telomere to telomere fusion not cause cancer and the death of an organism, because that is what we see today. None of the papers you submitted suggested how this could be possible either.

Then read the dozens or hundreds of other papers on the subject if you don't understand the ones I gave as examples. They are explaining observations, not speculating on how what they are seeing could not happen because of some religious bias clouding their analysis.

Yet none of this chimp end cap satDNA is located in the human genome, much less on chromosome 2 near the fusion site

And why would it be? Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Or do you not realize that? We evolved from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos. So chimps could have all kinds of mutations that don't appear in humans because they split off from the common ancestor and did not give rise to humans. Have at look at this again:

https://biologos.org/articles/denisovan ... e-2-fusion

The fusion event most likely happened after the split between humans, and chimps/bonobos. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees.

The problem is that fusion could not have happen at this position.

Then what is your alternative explanation for why humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48? All you are doing is saying the fusion couldn't happen, despite evidence that it did. Screaming that it can't be true because you don't believe it is not an alternative explanation. I'll believe the scientists who actually have a rational argument and evidence so support their claims.

In fact they are not called theories until every detail has been worked out.

Do you really not understand how science works to the point of making a statement like that? You have railed against the scientific theory of evolution from day one, and now claim that every detail of it must be worked out because it is called a theory. So you now believe ToE because it is, in fact, a formal scientific theory? Glad we got that sorted out.

The transition from hypothesis to theory happens when sufficient observation, evidence, experiments, analysis, etc. confirm the hypothesis to be correct. But nearly all scientific theories have finer details that are continuously tweaked as more information comes in. Newtons theory of gravity is a perfect example. It explained most observations except for a few exceptions at the time (eg. orbit of Mercury), then Einstein came along with General Relativity and was able to explain Mercury's orbit and predict a whole slew of other things that have now been confirmed by observation. This doesn't negate Newton's theory of gravity ... it refines it and this sort of thing happens all the time. The book isn't closed on any theory once it reaches that status ... details are constantly refined as new technology allows more detailed obvervations, etc.

Natural selection is not evolution.

Right ... it is the process by which beneficial DNA changes (such as the chromosome 2 fusion event) remain in a population while deleterious DNA changes do not. You've yet to offer up an alternative explanation for why humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48. What happened to cause this, given that you apparently now accept that ToE is true (because it a formal scientific theory)? Surely the creationist websites have come up with some alternative explanation by now? Or have they not attempted to tackle this because they see no reason to as they think humans were created as special creatures and did not evolve from a great ape ancestor (we actually are apes by the way)?