KINDS and ADAPTATION

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

KINDS and ADAPTATION

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #11

Post by Still small »

Deleted Double Entry
Last edited by Still small on Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by Still small »

Donray wrote: 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.
I think I may qualify as one ‘that believes like EarthScienceguy’ or close to it. While I believe in evolution, being the change in a population over time, I do not hold to the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA) of all life. I believe that rather than a single ‘tree of life’ from which all living species descend, that God created, using the same sort of analogy, an ‘orchard of life’, being several individual and totally separate ‘trees’ or family groups which evolved and adapted into various species within that group or family.

The term used in Scripture is ‘kind’ (min) with the original ‘created’ (bara) being known as ‘baramin’ from which we derive the term ‘Baraminology’, being the ‘study of created kind’. As for proof using known fossils, I think it is a matter of the lack of fossil evidence of ancestral species between families. What some may think of (and hope for) as missing links (whether in phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium), are actually non-existent ‘links’ which fits exactly with what is observed or not observed, as the case may be, in the current fossil record. Any imagined linking ancestor is purely extrapolation based on the assumption of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) being fact, not proof of it being so.
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.
The Neanderthals and Denisovans are descendants, I believe, of the original ‘created kind’ of Hominid, being Adam (and Eve) as are Homo Sapien. Hence their ability to interbreed. Your use of the term ‘modern humans’ which is often used in reference to Homo Sapien, can be misleading and biased as indicated in a recent paper -

“In essence, the data are subservient to the narrative that an entity known as anatomically modern humans exists and has a singular origin. Yet, this story ignores the complex fossil records of Asia and Australia and perpetuates a distinctly Eurocentric vision of our past. The phrase “anatomically modern Homo sapiens� was �rst used in the 1970s to distinguish between Neanderthals and the European hominins who looked more like us. It wasn’t meant to establish a formal species boundary.�
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.
As the scriptures do not give an actual list, any suggestion would be an assumption. As the requirement given to Noah was to save those “wherein is the breath of life� (Gen 7:15), i.e. breathed air, and “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive� (Gen 6:19-20) one might start with a list of all taxonomic ‘families’ of terrestrial animals, birds and reptiles that breath air, for example, Canidae, Felidae, etc. Pairs (male and female) of these ‘created kind’ would be on the Ark, (the actual names may vary whether they be Latin, Hebrew or English).
Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?
No, I’m with a number of educated people who do not blindly accept the assumption of ‘long ages’ required in order to have a Uniformitarian a priori. (I hold to the idea of Catastrophism being that current appearances, especially in geology, are due to a series of catastrophes, i.e. floods, tectonic plate movements, etc.)
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.
Adaptation is evolution in the sense as mentioned earlier, a change in a population over time. Though, the ‘adaptation’ to which I refer is not reliant upon the usual method of Neo-Darwinism being gradual change in the genome of species over long periods of time via random or chance mutations and natural selection. This process requires extremely long periods of time. (Hence the Materialists’ idea of “given enough time, anything is possible�.) The ‘adaptation’ to which I refer is the rapid change in a species due to the ‘switching’ on or off of pre-existing genetic information in response to particular environmental conditions and niches. One such case is the epigenetic process which can result in noticeable adaptions within a single generation. I am of the opinion that, due to forethought and design, within the genome of the original ‘created kind’ existed the genetic information of all the descendant species within that Family plus the mechanism for expression (or suppression) of the various traits needed to adapt to various niches. Yes, natural selection is still part of the process but as always, selecting from existing traits or information. And, yes, mutations also play a role but only to a very minor extent, most being deleterious or neutral with only the rare beneficial result.
Admittedly, if speciation is reliant upon the Neo-Darwinian method of random and undirected genetic mutations, etc, and natural selection from such, alone, then rapid speciation is not likely. As the epigenetic process relies upon the utilisation of existing information within the genome or epigenome, this, plus a lack of competition, can account for the rapid speciation experienced after release from the Ark.

Here are a couple of links to papers discussing the epigenetic process and how it may cause a rethink of the evolutionary process - Link 1 and Link 2. (And, here, I’ll throw in a third one just to test the level of open-mindedness/bias to which I’m about to refer.)
I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.
If by ‘debate’ you mean an open-minded discussion, I’m happy to be involved. But if you mean an outright ‘blue’ (argument) with the intent of ridicule, negativity and abuse (as is the habit of some posters on these boards), then I see no point. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #13

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 12 by Still small]
The Neanderthals and Denisovans are descendants, I believe, of the original ‘created kind’ of Hominid, being Adam (and Eve) as are Homo Sapien.
From this comment, and others in the post, it appears that you believe that the Adam and Eve story from the christian bible, as well as the Noah's ark story, are factually true. If so, how can you not believe that the age of the earth is as can be derived from biblical chronology (ie. about 6,000 years old)?

I don't understand how someone can believe that the Genesis creation myth is true (in particular that Adam and Eve were real people and the first humans), as well as the Noah's flood myth, and not be a young earth creationist. Explain how that is possible without substantially reworking the biblical narrative (and what basis is there for that?), or interpreting it very differently than it is described in the text.

Biblical chronology is at least roughly "followable" as far as dates, placing Noah's flood at about 4,400 years ago. Given that we know, for absolute fact, that there was no global flood covering the highest mountains and wiping out all air-breathing life a measly 4,400 years ago, how do you reconcile the biblical flood story with reality without completely ignoring biblical chronology?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #14

Post by Still small »

DrNoGods wrote: From this comment, and others in the post, it appears that you believe that the Adam and Eve story from the christian bible, as well as the Noah's ark story, are factually true. If so, how can you not believe that the age of the earth is as can be derived from biblical chronology (ie. about 6,000 years old)?
True, I don’t think you can (and be honest). According to the scriptures, the passage of time here on Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years.
I don't understand how someone can believe that the Genesis creation myth is true (in particular that Adam and Eve were real people and the first humans), as well as the Noah's flood myth, and not be a young earth creationist.
I agree, neither do I (oh, except for the ‘myth’ references).
Explain how that is possible without substantially reworking the biblical narrative (and what basis is there for that?), or interpreting it very differently than it is described in the text.
Again, I agree, I can’t explain how it’s possible, not without excluding numerous other verse that appear to confirm the Genesis account or being inconsistent.
Biblical chronology is at least roughly "followable" as far as dates, placing Noah's flood at about 4,400 years ago. Given that we know, for absolute fact, that there was no global flood covering the highest mountains and wiping out all air-breathing life a measly 4,400 years ago, how do you reconcile the biblical flood story with reality without completely ignoring biblical chronology? (Emphasis added)
Maybe one should check the veracity of what one refers to as ‘absolute fact� as opposed to an understanding that is based on a priori for the interpretation of the evidence. Also whether one’s understanding of “reality� may actually be based on assumption and extrapolation, again as a result of an a priori. This often happens when one is taught something and then having blind faith that the ‘teacher’ has verified the information and does not dare question it because it’s the consensus. Some may fear being ostracised and ridiculed for daring to question the establishment by thinking for themselves. Have you checked out any papers on alternative explanations, as opposed to just reading biased criticism of such research?

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #15

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 14 by Still small]
Maybe one should check the veracity of what one refers to as ‘absolute fact� as opposed to an understanding that is based on a priori for the interpretation of the evidence.


My comments are not based on any a priori assumptions or teachings that I don't understand and am blindly believing. We know from radiometric dating and other methods that the earth is far older then 6,000 - 10,000 years. I understand very well how radiometric dating works, and that is very reliable if done properly using uncontaminated samples. This method alone proves that the earth is billions of years old (4.6 billion). I've dated several rock samples myself using mass spectrometers as well as spectroscopic techniques, and of course this is a common technique used in labs around the world for decades with consistent results (especially with meteorites).

So there is no legitimate debate on the age of the earth ... this has been proven, quantitatively, via reliable radiometric dating methods as well as other considerations from geology, archeology (structures have been dated to far more than 10,000 years ago), etc. Multiple disciplines all confirm that the biblical ~6,000 year old earth time frame is orders of magnitude out. Of course, there are people who will argue that the earth is flat and they have their usual argument points which can also all be shot down with basic and simple experimental and observational science. So they try and discredit the science just like young earth creationists do. There is just too much evidence for an old earth ... it is overwhelming.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #16

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 14 by Still small]
True, I don’t think you can (and be honest). According to the scriptures, the passage of time here on Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years.
Slightly off topic, but this is something that's always confused me. Young earth creationists almost always say this "between 6,000 and 10,000 years". Well...which is it? If you're (generic YEC) are able to determine the age of the universe with such precision, why waffle between these two ages? Pick one. How come in a YEC model, using such a low number (as compared to actual science which deals with large numbers such as billions), you have such a large margin of error? A 10,000 yr old universe is almost twice as old as a 6,000 yr old universe. Contrast this with what I took from Wikipedia
"The best measurement of the age of the Universe is 13.8 billion years (specifically, 13.798±0.037 billion years)" Look at the margin of error there. It's minuscule.

Shouldn't one be unsatisfied with the large margin of error as indicated by YECs? Imagine if architects operated this way. They say they've performed measurements on a load bearing structure and it comes to either 5 meters or 5.8 meters tall, and can carry either 500kg or 580kg. Well...which is it? Why is it you can't get more precise than that?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #17

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 16 by rikuoamero]
Young earth creationists almost always say this "between 6,000 and 10,000 years". Well...which is it?


Some of these people do try and get precise ... way too precise. In 1658 James Usher decided the universe was created at nightfall on Oct. 23, 4004 BC. A few years before in 1642 John Lightfoot worked out a date of Sept. 17, 3928 BC. They battled it out and finally concluded that Usher was right and "creation" happened during the week of Oct. 18-24, 4004 BC, with the creation of Adam occurring at 9:00 am on Oct. 23, presumably using whatever time zone the Garden of Eden was in (not sure if they considered daylight saving time!).

Creation.com go through a biblical chronology exercise and conclude that earth cannot be more than 7680 years old with a "creation" date of between 5665 and 3822 BC:

https://creation.com/biblical-age-of-the-earth

They consider only uncertainties in geneology and event dates to arrive at this. AIG tabulate all of the predictions in a couple of tables and get "creation" dates of 5501 BC to 3836 BC in one (by chronologists), and 6984 BC to 3616 BC in another (by cultures):

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... the-earth/

Of course, all of this is based on assuming that the bible stories are actually true, and we know now that they cannot be (ie. no modern human ... and the biblical characters were all modern humans ... has ever lived to anywhere near 200+ years, much less 900+ years).

The ~4.6 billion year number for the age of the earth actually has solid scientific evidence to support it, and I've posted these meteorite dating summarys from AIG before along with their silly attempt to explain the results:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... rites-iii/

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... hondrites/

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... eteorites/

These people will never give up and would argue that the sky is green and not blue if it was so stated in their holy book, and work out some explanation for why we think we see blue when we really don't.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #18

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 17 by DrNoGods]
Some of these people do try and get precise ... way too precise. In 1658 James Usher decided the universe was created at nightfall on Oct. 23, 4004 BC. A few years before in 1642 John Lightfoot worked out a date of Sept. 17, 3928 BC. They battled it out and finally concluded that Usher was right and "creation" happened during the week of Oct. 18-24, 4004 BC, with the creation of Adam occurring at 9:00 am on Oct. 23, presumably using whatever time zone the Garden of Eden was in (not sure if they considered daylight saving time!).
That, I honestly did not know. Thanks.
They consider only uncertainties in geneology and event dates to arrive at this. AIG tabulate all of the predictions in a couple of tables and get "creation" dates of 5501 BC to 3836 BC in one (by chronologists), and 6984 BC to 3616 BC in another (by cultures):
Thanks for this. I knew already they used geneology, by simply accepting the ages of the centuries old men mentioned in the Bible as literal gospel truth (no pun intended!), but cultures? Didn't know that.
The ~4.6 billion year number for the age of the earth actually has solid scientific evidence to support it, and I've posted these meteorite dating summarys from AIG before along with their silly attempt to explain the results:
I'm not going to click the links, but tell me please - do they try to date a specific kind of rock that geologists (at least those worth their salt) would not date (or the reverse)? I ask this because I am aware of one creationist scientist who did that, despite the fact he would have known through his own secular education that the rock he talked about in his creationist publications cannot actually be radiometrically dated.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #19

Post by wiploc »

I recently ran across a history of creationist time lines.

Turns out 6,000 years is supposed to be the total duration of the earth. And one usually leaves a bit of time remaining at the end.

So if I was doing a biblical timescale today, I might say creation was in 4,200BC, so we have 181 years left to go before the end. (This post being written in 2019.)

The upshot of this adherence to a 6,000 year total is that successive prognosticators had to set the creation date later and later in order to leave some time yet to run, to avoid condemning us to immediate death.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #20

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 18 by rikuoamero]
do they try to date a specific kind of rock that geologists (at least those worth their salt) would not date (or the reverse)?


No ... it's much worse than that. They show comprehensive tables of a great number of results of radiometric dating of meteorites, using different isotope combinations, and even show the remarkable agreement these produce. They have no problem showing that all of these measurements do indeed arrive at a date of about 4.6 billion years with very little scatter.

Then they proceed with hand-waving arguments to try and explain why they can't be correct, including comments like this (from the first link):

"However, God is not bound by the physical laws He put in place at creation, as He can change them at any time anywhere or everywhere. After all, when Jesus Christ the Creator locally suspended the law of gravity as He walked on the stormy waters of the Sea of Galilee, the law of gravity was still operating at the same time to keep the disciples in their boat, their boat on the water and the earth in space in orbit around the sun. Thus God could have made small changes to the binding forces of the nuclei of only the earth’s atoms during the Flood to cause accelerated radioisotope decay only on the earth, while leaving the atoms making up the rest of the solar system and universe untouched. Perhaps the reason God initiated accelerated radioisotope decay only on the earth was to generate the heat necessary to initiate and drive the catastrophic plate tectonics which reshaped the earth’s surface during the Flood."

Convincing huh? They basically conclude that although the results of radiometric dating are remarkably consistent and yield the same ~4.6 billion year old earth, these measurements cannot be correct because they contradict the ~6000 year old age the bible suggests. And since the bible is the "word of god" and therefore cannot be incorrect, the radiometric dating results must be wrong by definition because they do not yield the "true" age implied by biblical chronology.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply