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 277 by DrNoGods]

I made no such statements. And you continue to defend Humphreys' nonsense. Justify the following Humphreys' assumptions:

1) The Earth is 6000 years old.

2) The Earth's magnetic field strength decays as a single exponential.

3) The Earth started out as a ball of H2O.

4) God aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the initial starting field.

Until you can do that ... all 4 of them ... you have no case. I would add "try again", but you've yet to justify any of these initial assumptions, or even try once. Just one of these assumptions being false would negate anything he may come up with, but the fact that all 4 of them are demonstrably false completely destroys his "theory." Yet you continue to try and defend it as legitimate.

WOW!. Focus here. Focus and read.

Humphreys has more than one theory. In this theory Humphreys predicts how the Earth's magnetic field would fluctuate because of the flood. And it also has been confirmed by observations.

Creationist theories actually do what naturalist theories can only hope to do.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 278 by EarthScienceguy]

It is illogical to assume that CHANCE is going to work in a particular direction.

And ToE does not say that this is how things work. You clearly do not understand ToE and natural selection at even the most basic level, so I'd suggest an introductory book like this one:



as a starting point. It might help you to understand the basics, then once you can grasp the information there you could move to a more detailed explanation, especially of natural selection which you continuously ignore, or misrepresent, presumably because you don't understand what it is. Your quoted statement above proves that as you made that statement in reference to ToE, and evidently believe it suggests that chance works in a particular direction.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 279 by EarthScienceguy]

WOW!. Focus here. Focus and read.

And yet again, you evade the questions and attempt to change the subject. I'll take that to mean that you cannot justify any of the 4 assumptions Humphreys' used in his magnetic field decay "paper" (which was the topic of discussion ... focus). This evasion and change-the-subject tactic doesn't work. Can you justify those assumptions from a scientific standpoint (that is the forum section we are in after all), or not? If not, then stop defending Humphreys' "theory" on planetary magnetic fields as a legitimate scientific result. It is nonsense because his assumptions are wrong.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

as a starting point. It might help you to understand the basics, then once you can grasp the information there you could move to a more detailed explanation, especially of natural selection which you continuously ignore, or misrepresent, presumably because you don't understand what it is. Your quoted statement above proves that as you made that statement in reference to ToE, and evidently believe it suggests that chance works in a particular direction.

You might want want to peruse the book you offered me. Because I am not sure you are understanding TOE.

Creationist and evolutionist agree on natural selection so I am not sure why you are bringing this up. In fact both agree that there is a limit to which an organism can change.

It is at this point the two theories diverge. Creationist theorize that all organisms were created at this point and Evolutionist believe that mutations gave organisms the ability to jump to a different line or what creationist would call kinds. That is the demarcation between the two theories.

Natural selection has nothing to do with the difference between the two theories.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 282 by EarthScienceguy]

Natural selection has nothing to do with the difference between the two theories.

Who said it did? My comment was that you don't understand what natural selection is based on your comment in post 278:

"It is illogical to assume that CHANCE is going to work in a particular direction."

ToE and natural selection do not say that chance works in any particular direction. The fact that you think ToE does say this shows that you don't understand the subject.

In fact both agree that there is a limit to which an organism can change.

No ... that is not a fact. It is the creationist's position, not ToE's position. Again, you don't understand natural selection if that is what you think it says. You are making up definitions and presenting them as if they were correct, but they just demonstrate your misunderstanding of the subject. ToE places no limits on how much change can happen over time. Creationism isn't a "theory" as you keep saying ... it is simply belief in the biblical narrative (in the case of Christians), regardless of whether it is scientifically valid or not. Attempts to twist and misrepresent science to make it fit the biblical narrative is not science, and the people who do this are not scientists and don't produce theories.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 283 by DrNoGods]

ToE and natural selection do not say that chance works in any particular direction. The fact that you think ToE does say this shows that you don't understand the subject.


Quote:
In fact both agree that there is a limit to which an organism can change.

No ... that is not a fact. It is the creationist's position, not ToE's position. Again, you don't understand natural selection if that is what you think it says. You are making up definitions and presenting them as if they were correct, but they just demonstrate your misunderstanding of the subject. ToE places no limits on how much change can happen over time. Creationism isn't a "theory" as you keep saying ... it is simply belief in the biblical narrative (in the case of Christians), regardless of whether it is scientifically valid or not. Attempts to twist and misrepresent science to make it fit the biblical narrative is not science, and the people who do this are not scientists and don't produce theories.

Are you trying to say that you do not believe in Mendel's laws of genetics?

Mendel's laws indicate that if the information is not there then it is not getting transfer.

The points where punctuated equilibrium are applied are at the points of major change.


Natural History magazine (May 1977, pp. 12–16), Gould chided the gradual evolutionists for appealing to the “extreme imperfection� of the fossil record in an effort to explain the missing links. He countered that even if we were to grant this “traditional escape,� it still would not answer the biggest question—the viability of the transitional forms themselves. Gould pointed out that it is difficult to even imagine how transitional animals passing through the intermediate stages of evolution would be benefited or even survive. He asked:

Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?

The problem is if an organism is going from a wing to an arm there are many changes in the morphology of the organism. Bone structure and tendon and ligament attachment.

No matter what kind of pressure we apply to organisms in the lab we do not see any change in function that an organism did not have before. In other words we do not see a violation of Mendel's laws.

It is ludicrous to assume that Mendel's laws are going to be violated when we do not see any observations of mutation causing new function. It was bad enough assuming it took place over millions of years. But the idea of this much change taking place over thousands of years is beyond ludicrous it is pure fantasy.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

1) The Earth is 6000 years old.

2) The Earth's magnetic field strength decays as a single exponential.

3) The Earth started out as a ball of H2O.

4) God aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the initial starting field.

[Still small]

No. Why would there be without any environmental pressure? Look at the finch beak discussion from another thread (post 115 and surrounding in the Debate with a scientist thread). Longer beaks were already in the population (ie. the genes for those existed), in the wings of the distribution of beak lengths, but did not become dominant until a change in food source benefitted those with longer beaks. No new mutations were required in this case ... just "selection" of those with the longer beak mutation which then spread through the population as it was beneficial. Without the new food source requiring longer beaks to reach, there would have been no shift towards longer beaks. So without the forcing function (ie. the new food source) the longer beak selection would not have been made. (Emphasis added)

“Longer beaks were already in the population� as per epigenetics. The various species of finches are concurrent species from the same Family, not transitional (ancestral or descendants). Though, as the environmental conditions changed, the dominant species can change to the possible extremity of extinction. Just as an Alaskan Malamute and a Dingo could survive together in a particular environment but any dramatic change could lead to a (local) extinction. But one is not descendant from the other. They are concurrent from the same Family, not transitional.

You're describing it as if a random beneficial mutation automatically spreads through the population regardless of the specific benefit, so that all representatives should exist in a population. The word "benefit" has to be considered in context. What might be a beneficial mutation in one environment may not be in another (eg. a longer beak would not be a benefit on the original island with the different food source, but it is on the new island). The forcing function is what drives the selection of a given beneficial mutation. If megalodon came back and could catch 90% of great white sharks for lunch, some mutation that allowed the great white to swim faster might suddenly become hugely beneficial when before it didn't really confer an advantage so would not spread through the population.

No, I’m stating that particular genetic variations can exist at the same time (concurrent). The process of epigenetics allows adaptation to particular environmental niches concurrently. The various transitionals to which you refer may well be such an example. If the process were solely reliant on an accumulation of chance mutations over multiple generations, hence the need for ‘millions of years’, then there should be numerous examples of transitionals in each line. But that doesn’t fit with the evidence nor the Punctuated Equilibrium theory. If the process is reliant upon rapid morphological changes as required by punctuated equilibrium and evidenced by a lack of transitionals, then a dramatic increase in the normal mutation rate to account for rapid change must be explained. Without the rapid increase in new genetic information via mutations, natural selection has nothing from which to ‘select’. If the ToE is ‘slow and gradual’, there should numerous transitionals in each line. But so far there isn’t. If the ToE is via punctuated equilibrium, there must be a ‘force’ which drastically increases mutation rates. But so far not one has been provided.

I won't comment on the obvious knock against radiometric dating and "evolutionary assumptions", but I often link to Wikipedia articles because they are usually general discussions of a topic, with links at the bottom to either other more detailed Wikipedia articles, or to the original peer-reviewed science papers. Plus, many journals now require purchase of original articles for typically $30-40 per article which makes them practically unavailable to people who don't have access via their university or place of employment. I do have access to many of these journals without paying, but can't scan and post the articles as that can result in legal trouble (the journals don't like people giving away their copyrighted materials). So I'm not suggesting Wikipedia articles as a first source, but their bottom links often do have the original sources, although you may have to pay to read those papers. (Emphasis added)

This is very much the same when quoting or linking Creationist websites. They are usually “general discussions� with links in the footnotes to more detailed articles and/or peer-reviewed papers. Therefore, “if it’s good for the goose. . . . “.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

Well, I have seen a number of claims about 'not based on observable data', however, I know those claims to be false.

Would your knowledge of “those claims to be false� be based on the same claims as offered by Richard Dawkins when, during an interview, he made the ridiculous claim - “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.� (Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network)

As for as the IRC's (sic) magnetic field data, it's been throughtly (sic) debunked.

http://www.skeptictank.org/files/icr/magnet01.htm

Besides the numerous spelling mistakes and covering only part of the article by Humphreys, the article you linked from skeptictank.org by Steve Price, is nothing but personal opinion without giving or linking any scientific support. On a similar level, Price’s article could be ‘thoroughly debunked’ simply by my statement, “you’re wrong�.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 285 by Still small]

But one is not descendant from the other. They are concurrent from the same Family, not transitional.

The section of text you quoted was not discussing transitional forms (of which there are many examples), but rather how a minor trait can become dominant in a population without the need for any new mutations due to a change in environment.

If the ToE is ‘slow and gradual’, there should numerous transitionals in each line. But so far there isn’t. If the ToE is via punctuated equilibrium, there must be a ‘force’ which drastically increases mutation rates. But so far not one has been provided.

Many transitional fossils have been found and documented, and examples of rapid evolutionary change are plentiful. ToE is not just gradual change, or punctuated equilibrium ... both occur. The rate that change occurs depends on the driving force and its strength, the reproduction rate, etc. Mutations can occur at the same rate in both cases, and as in the earlier example there may be no need for any new mutations. If an antibiotic wipes out 99.99% of a population of bacteria but 0.01% survives, the mutations already existing in that 0.01% making them resistant would suddenly become dominant in the population as long as this antibiotic were present. Given the reproduction rate of bacteria, a new population could come to dominate in just a few days. This population could then undergo the same process against a new antibiotic and after a few cycles of this the resulting population of bacteria is very different from the original population.

Another point is that fossilization is rare. The fossil record is hugely incomplete and analysis of fossils is a puzzle of trying to fit everything together that has been observed. If every fossil of every organism that ever lived was available then you could argue about not having an example every transitional form (although creationists seem to refuse to admit that there are any, despite the evidence). I've found estimates all over the map for the fraction of animals leaving fossil records of any kind, such as this paper:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /ele.12589

and many comments similar to this one by Shibajyoti Das (PhD student at the Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University)

"Fossilization is a rare phenomenon. Scientists speculate that the number of extinct animal species is about 100,000,000 and only 100,000 have been discovered and identified. That means only 0.001% animal species that ever lived have been discovered. Remember that each species would have had millions and millions of individuals."

But whatever the actual numbers are, fossilization is a rare event and you would not expect the fossil record to fully represent ever creature that ever lived. It is very much a situation of a preponderance of the evidence, but there is enough evidence to show that ToE is correct in general, and the reason it is accepted by the huge majority of scientists worldwide. And the genetics work of the last 40-50 years is consistent with it as well.

This is very much the same when quoting or linking Creationist websites. They are usually “general discussions� with links in the footnotes to more detailed articles and/or peer-reviewed papers. Therefore, “if it’s good for the goose. . . . “.

When they do reference legitimate science papers that's fine. But when they start with a "Statement of Faith" specifically discarding any science that contradicts the biblical narrative, they lose any legitimacy immediately. That is the exact opposite of how science is done.