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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 226 by DrNoGods]

You got the quoted sections all messed up, but I'll skip the lesson on what is a "law" and what is a "theory" from someone who is an admitted creationist and defends Russell Humphreys' "theory" of planetary magnetic fields. I'd actually pay not to have to hear any of that nonsense.

You did not like my Law vs. theory lecture? It is usually a fan favorite.

[Still small]

"DrNoGods"
[Replying to post 225 by EarthScienceguy]

Evolution has failed to explain how life began here on earth.

And so does that. If, by now, you don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with HOW life began, then you'll never understand how it actually works. Evolution doesn't explain how life began any more than the Theory of Relativity explains how to make rice pudding ... they are completely unrelated. Evolution only requires that life did begin at some point, and has nothing at all to say about HOW this happened. How can you debate evolution if you don't even understand this fundamental point. But you always like to resort back to origins for some reason, whether it has anything to do with the subject or not.(Emphasis added)

Why is this so important? Going back (way back) to my ‘track and field’ days, in the 4 x 100m relay, I was always the 2nd runner. Now, I trained regularly, I out ran everyone else on the team (hence being 2nd runner) and I held a few State records. But, in the relay, it mattered not how fast I could run, nor the 3rd or 4th runners. If there was no 1st runner, the ‘starting leg’, all my training, all my abilities, all my records were for naught. My part in the race could not start. The Theory of Evolution is the 2nd runner in the ‘relay of life’. Yet without a 1st runner, being ‘the origin of life’, the ‘starting leg’, the 2nd runner cannot begin and there is no race. That’s why a workable ‘theory of origins of life’ is necessary, for without it, everything else comes to naught.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 230 by Still small]

Yet without a 1st runner, being ‘the origin of life’, the ‘starting leg’, the 2nd runner cannot begin and there is no race. That’s why a workable ‘theory of origins of life’ is necessary, for without it, everything else comes to naught.

I don't disagree with that ... life obviously had to start somehow. My point was that the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanism of how life originated. It doesn't specify the means or depend on it. ESG made the comment "Evolution has failed to explain how life began here on earth", and I was only pointing out that of course it doesn't ... it only describes how life diversified once it did come into being (by whatever means). HOW it originated is irrelevant to ToE.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 230 by Still small]

Expecting evolution to explain abiogenesis is like expecting chemistry to explain art. The problem with anti-science like creationism, is that it explains nothing. "God did it" is not an explanation, it is anti-knowledge.

[Clownboat]

"DrNoGods"
[Replying to post 225 by EarthScienceguy]

Evolution has failed to explain how life began here on earth.

And so does that. If, by now, you don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with HOW life began, then you'll never understand how it actually works. Evolution doesn't explain how life began any more than the Theory of Relativity explains how to make rice pudding ... they are completely unrelated. Evolution only requires that life did begin at some point, and has nothing at all to say about HOW this happened. How can you debate evolution if you don't even understand this fundamental point. But you always like to resort back to origins for some reason, whether it has anything to do with the subject or not.(Emphasis added)

Why is this so important? Going back (way back) to my ‘track and field’ days, in the 4 x 100m relay, I was always the 2nd runner. Now, I trained regularly, I out ran everyone else on the team (hence being 2nd runner) and I held a few State records. But, in the relay, it mattered not how fast I could run, nor the 3rd or 4th runners. If there was no 1st runner, the ‘starting leg’, all my training, all my abilities, all my records were for naught. My part in the race could not start. The Theory of Evolution is the 2nd runner in the ‘relay of life’. Yet without a 1st runner, being ‘the origin of life’, the ‘starting leg’, the 2nd runner cannot begin and there is no race. That’s why a workable ‘theory of origins of life’ is necessary, for without it, everything else comes to naught.

Have a good day!
Still small

To use your analogy:
That life started is your track and field event.
How life then evolved is your 4 x 100 relay.

Can't have a relay without there being a meet, but how the meet came about is totally separate from the relay that has taken place at said meet.

[John Human]

[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.

Saying so doesn't make it true. (And once again you conflate "evolution" with natural selection.) I challenge you to explain how the interlocking structures of the human locking knee came into being gradually, step-by-step. Such a supposition simply boggles the mind.

I also challenge you to provide a scientific source that gives evidence supporting your contention that the human locking knee developed gradually.

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.

It would appear that your statement violates the forum's rule #5 at viewtopic.php?t=6:

"Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it."

You have gone where angels (and scientists) fear to tread. You make the astounding claim that the evolution of modern humans through natural selection has been proven. Could you please say what species humans evolved from, with supporting proof?

Homo sapiens ... via a long and bushy evolutionary tree

A "bushy" evolutionary tree. Perhaps your curious choice of words reflects awareness of ongoing scientific disagreement concerning which fossil remains belong to what allegedly proto-human species. There is also scientific disagreement about whether particular fossils represent variations within a proto-human species or different now-extinct dead-end "homo" species. But you dare to assert that the evolution by natural selection of modern humans has been "proven."

In addition, you stated, in post #89 on the "Debate with a scientist" thread -- at viewtopic.php?t=35419&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80 (scroll down near the bottom) -- that "It is clear that human intelligence advanced from Homo erectus to Homo sapien via enlargement of the brain, and changes in brain structure (modern human brains are about 80% neocortex)."

You took the position that modern humans evolved from homo erectus. Is that what you now maintain has been "proven"? Here is an interesting Wikipedia quote, from their article on "Human evolution" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution:

"While some (extinct) Homo species might have been ancestors of Homo sapiens, many, perhaps most, were likely "cousins", having speciated away from the ancestral hominin line.[148][149] There is yet no consensus as to which of these groups should be considered a separate species and which should be a subspecies; this may be due to the dearth of fossils or to the slight differences used to classify species in the genus Homo.[49]"

But you boldly go out on a limb with the bald assertion that the evolution of modern humans by natural selection has been proven. Please provide proof, with a specific reference to a source discussing the chain of reasoning from the available evidence demonstrating the evolution of modern humans from [whatever specific earlier species] by means of natural selection.

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.

Here, by stating that "speciation is perfectly compatible with evolution," you once again conflate "evolution" with "natural selection." You also make an unsupported claim that "ring species exist." Please support your claim with evidence for the existence of a single "ring species."

Cumulative changes can result in speciation, with natural selection working the whole time.

That's exactly the point in question. Please prove it. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it.

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

Perhaps you could provide an example of a "ring species," with evidence backing up its actual existence. The wikipedia article on ring species indicates that there is disagreement among scientists regarding the proposed hypothetical examples, stating that "it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Right now, it would seem that the only "evidence" supporting your "proof" of evolution of modern humans by natural selection is sloppy wishful thinking.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 234 by John Human]

Saying so doesn't make it true. (And once again you conflate "evolution" with natural selection.) I challenge you to explain how the interlocking structures of the human locking knee came into being gradually, step-by-step. Such a supposition simply boggles the mind.

Don't take my word for it. The subject of ToE has been written about for over 150 years and is documented in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, thousands of books and websites, etc. My comment was "complex structures can be built via evolution through many small steps over long periods of time, whether it be knees or eyes." That is a general statement and you reply with "Saying so doesn't make it true.' It is not me "saying so." It is the cumulative work of thousands of scientists for over a century "saying so." Surely you don't expect me (or anyone else) to summarize that immense body of work in a forum post do you? Try doing a little homework from your side if you want to try and debunk 150 years of science that has proven, conclusively, that "complex structures can be built via evolution through many small steps over long periods of time." Just find yourself any book on evolution if you want examples and descriptions. This is not some claim I am personally making.

It would appear that your statement violates the forum's rule #5 at viewtopic.php?t=6:

"Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it."

See above. My statement is supported by 150 years of scientific research and observations, documented in thousands of papers and books. Try Google.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 008-0076-1

https://faculty.uca.edu/benw/biol4415/p ... ect12a.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... omplexity/
(this one suggests that complex structures can arise without natural selection, through random mutations alone)

Restricting to only peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, there are tens of thousands.

You make the astounding claim that the evolution of modern humans through natural selection has been proven. Could you please say what species humans evolved from, with supporting proof?

Again ... this is not a claim that I am making willy-nilly. It is the scientific consensus after 150+ years of research into the subject. The genetics work of the last 40-50 years as shown conclusively that modern humans evolved from an ape ancestor. The common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos lived sometime in the 6-10 million years ago time frame. The human evolutionary tree is very "bushy" as I said earlier, and modern humans evolved from one of the branches of this tree. Just Google "human evolution tree" and look at the many images and articles that appear. There are countless website articles like these:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

https://genome.cshlp.org/content/8/4/339.full

that reference published research, or summarize it, and it has been proven, beyond any doubt, that humans evolved from an ape ancestor. But don't take my word for it ... do a little reading and Googling for yourself, or visit a library or natural history museum.

It is clear that human intelligence advanced from Homo erectus to Homo sapien via enlargement of the brain, and changes in brain structure (modern human brains are about 80% neocortex)."

You took the position that modern humans evolved from homo erectus. Is that what you now maintain has been "proven"? Here is an interesting Wikipedia quote, from their article on "Human evolution" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution:

I didn't take any such position. I said that the human evolutionary tree was "bushy" with many branches, and that brain size in the genus Homo increase from Homo erectus through to Homo sapiens. This does not translate into "you took the position that modern humans evolved from homo erectus." It means that brain size increased between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, exactly as stated, and this has been shown from the fossil record. Are you disputing this increase in brain size over time in the genus Homo?

But you boldly go out on a limb with the bald assertion that the evolution of modern humans by natural selection has been proven. Please provide proof, with a specific reference to a source discussing the chain of reasoning from the available evidence demonstrating the evolution of modern humans from [whatever specific earlier species] by means of natural selection.

This is how "Evolution by Natural Selection" works. It is not a secret or anything I am claiming without evidence. In the case of modern humans it has been shown, conclusively, that between the earliest members of the genus Homo, and Homo sapiens, that brain size and intelligence increased over time. Do you dispute this? Higher intelligence confers an advantage to the organism in terms of survival and reproductive success. Do you dispute this? Therefore, according to the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection", creatures with this increased intelligence would become dominant in the population, exactly as seen in the fossil record (and we are the only extant members of genus Homo that are left). What other significant evolutionary advantage do Homo sapiens have over the earlier members of the genus Homo besides higher intelligence? And why would not natural selection "favor" this huge benefit and allow it to persist in the population? I don't have to justify natural selection as a mechanism ... this has been proven to exist and be a primary driver of evolution, whether you believe it or not.

Here, by stating that "speciation is perfectly compatible with evolution," you once again conflate "evolution" with "natural selection." You also make an unsupported claim that "ring species exist." Please support your claim with evidence for the existence of a single "ring species."

What? You don't seem to have a clue what natural selection and evolution actually are. I'm not conflating them, and ring species actually do exist. There are many examples. Again, try a Google search. This is a really useful way to find information in today's world via the world wide web. Wikipedia have a list of some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

A few are disputed, but many are not, and the precise definition of "ring species" varies somewhat:

http://coleoguy.github.io/blackmon.pubs/2012a.pdf

but these do exist, no matter who much bold, red font you use. It only takes one to demonstrate the point (ie. that speciation can happen via slow changes over time, although we know this from many other examples like fish to amphibians, apes to humans, etc.).

That's exactly the point in question. Please prove it. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it.

See the entire body of scientific documentation pertaining to Evolution by Natural Selection over the past 150 years. None of the "claims" I am making are my work or disputed within the majority of the scientific community. I am simply pointing out what is clearly there for anyone who wants to look without anti-evolution blinders on.

Right now, it would seem that the only "evidence" supporting your "proof" of evolution of modern humans by natural selection is sloppy wishful thinking.

And the last 150 years of fossil evidence, combined with the last 40-50 years of genetics work. ToE has been proven as the basic process by which life has diversified on this planet, and humans are just another animal resulting from that process via evolution by natural selection from a great ape ancestor. This is the current scientific consensus supported by mountains of evidence that is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If you don't want to believe it that is your business, but you sure aren't offering up any legitimate arguments or evidence to disprove this science, or any alternatives to ToE. Is your position that some never before seen god being with zero evidence for its existence did it all by magic and miracles (or whatever you call "creation")? Hardly a competing argument, and of course there is positively zero evidence for it, or scientific support for it.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 180 by DrNoGods]

Without referencing bible verses ... provide some actual scientific references showing why it is even remotely feasible to believe that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. Forgot god swooping in to align all the H atom nuclear spins by magic (as Humphreys' did). Simply provide some straightforward scientific evidence to show that just one planet (Earth) started out as a ball of H2O. After all, this should be trivial for "EarthScienceguy" ... right? ... science related to planet Earth. What could be simpler?

Why would I have to do this without referencing the Bible? I believe that God created the universe during creation week and that science is simply a vehicle that we use to discover how God created the universe. God made the quantum field that all matter is made from. He could have manipulated the quantum field to produce the matter that we today. Or changed elements by use of a z pinch. But do make no mistake about it creationist believe that God is the cause of universe.

But naturalist being men of great faith should understand that. Naturalist have all kinds of faith that science will one day find a solution to the universe problem.

Make no mistake, all theories indicate that energy had to be imputed from the outside.

Again Alan Guth in his "ground breaking" paper entitled "The Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the Horizon and Flatness problems" makes the following claim. "Thus, one must assume that the forces that created the initial condition were capable of violating causality."

Anyone who believes that the universe can be created without a cause has way more faith than I do. At least creation theory has a cause for our big ball of water.

This statement is still as true today as when Guth made this statement almost forty years ago. So faith is alive and well in the science community today, way more faith than evangelicals have.

Guth also makes this statement in his "groundbreaking" paper. "From Section II one can see that both problems (referring to horizon and flatness) could disappear if the assumption of adibadicy was grossly incorrect." And then he gives the new equation for entropy that he is proposing. Sp = (z3) (So) Where Sp is entropy present and So is entropy initial he is proposing. Later in his paper he assumes Z = Tr/Ts where Tr is the reheated temperature that the universe is heated to as a result of Ts the latent heat given off after cooling.

Guth entire original proof of inflation is based on the universe not being adiabatic. In an adiabatic system entropy is conserved. His entire proof is predicated on the assumption that the universe is not an adiabatic system. And yet today the universe is said to be an adiabatic system. If that is the case there is no answer for the horizon and flatness problem.

But Naturalist have faith that science will find a way.

If Tr/Ts does provide the energy for the increase in energy then one would expect that the expansion would be slowing. In fact that is was the assumption when the expansion rate of the universe was being measured in the 90's. This is why it was such a shock when it was discovered that the universe appears to be accelerating.

So inflation theory was totally destroyed. But naturalist have all kinds of faith and even came up with some fictitious energy that permeates the universe causing the expansion.

Yes naturalist have way more faith than Bible believing Christians. They believe in universes poofing into existence without cause, and make believe energy. If naturalist want to believe in the impossible that is up to me. I just do not have enough faith to do that.

You do know that Alan Guth is an atheist???????

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 234 by John Human]

But you boldly go out on a limb with the bald assertion that the evolution of modern humans by natural selection has been proven. Please provide proof, with a specific reference to a source discussing the chain of reasoning from the available evidence demonstrating the evolution of modern humans from [whatever specific earlier species] by means of natural selection.

It is "proven" as a subset of ToE, which reached the formal status of scientific theory as a result of overwhelming evidence in support of it. But here is just one paper published in Nature that discusses the subject as regards humans:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04072

and another short article referencing the Nature paper (among others):

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pd ... 1313-8.pdf

But I expect you would reject any reference from any source because you don't believe humans evolved from apes, or that natural selection can result in speciation, regardless of the particular animals or plants being used as examples. Fortunately, that kind of minority view has no impact on science and continued research into ToE and its mechanisms ... that train will keep rolling on.

[Donray]

Thus far the creationists have done nothing but try to disprove science. They have done nothing to prove creation by a god. Mr small brain give an example of how bears evolved from some form of bear and that in itself proved what Darwin said and did nothing to prove "Kinds and adaptation" that was the topic.

We let these idiots change the subject all the time instead of holding them to proving their stupid belief that in the last 4000 years all the diversity of life happen from a few unidentified KINDS on a ark.

I asked for a timeline and the only answer is for me to try to figure out genesis that has two different descriptions of creation. They cannot even describe a timeline for there belief system.

Has anyone else noticed that they just try to discredit science but cannot defend or describe there beliefs.

Thus far creationists have not been able to provide a timeline for there theory.

They have said they do not understand their god and how their god works.

They are unable to fit their theory into known fossils.

They have no logical explanation for Neanderthals that through DNA proven to be another modern human.