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.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 54 by Still small]

Probably not, except if it was written from a creationist worldview or paradigm and still able to justify the points you mention.

Try absolutely not. According to the Statement of Faith page on AiG for example
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
"Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation."

Or from ICR
https://www.icr.org/tenets
"The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator."
"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. "

If ICR or AiG were to fund a scientist to do research, to find out how old the Earth might be or maybe to see how humans were formed and how long ago...that scientist's work would be outright rejected, if he posited that humans evolved a few million years ago, or that the earth formed over the course of tens of millions of years a few billion years ago. If that scientist comes back after a year holding volumes of pages detailing his research and says the earth is billions of years old...that research cannot and would not go up on either ICR or AiG, or be printed in their magazines.
Why would ICR or AiG publish it? That man's work contradicts what they have already declared to be true. Look at the writing in red from ICR. Theories of evolution are false, they declare. And that's it for them. They just declare it.

“Try absolutely not�. You’re probably correct, they’d probably have just as much chance as a creationist getting Nature or Science to publish something which goes against the consensus of the naturalistic materialism paradigm. Though, a number of the creationist authors have had papers published in such journals as long as it wasn’t overtly pushing creationism. Take John Hartnett, (physics and cosmology) for example -
Ground-breaking cosmological papers for secular journals
* Hartnett, J.G., The distance modulus determined from Carmeli’s cosmology fits the accelerating universe data of the high-redshift type Ia supernovae without dark matter, Found. Phys. 36(6):839–861, June 2006. arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501526
* Hartnett, J.G., Spiral galaxy rotation curves determined from Carmelian general relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45(11):2118–2136, November 2006. arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511756
* Hartnett, J.G., Tobar, M.E., Properties of gravitational waves in Cosmological general relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45(11):2181–2190, November 2006. arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603067
* Oliveira, F.J., Hartnett, J.G., Carmeli’s cosmology fits data for an accelerating and decelerating universe without dark matter or dark energy, Found. Phys. Lett. 19(6):519–535, November 2006. arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603500
* Hartnett, J.G., Oliveira,F.J., Luminosity distance, angular size and surface brightness in Cosmological General Relativity, Found. Phys. 37(3):446–454, 2007. arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603500
* Hartnett, J.G., Spheroidal and elliptical galaxy radial velocity dispersion determined from Cosmological General Relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 47(5): 1252–1260, 2008. arxiv.org/abs/0707.2858
* Hartnett, J.G., Extending the redshift-distance relation in Cosmological General Relativity to higher redshifts, Found. Phys. 38(3): 201–215, 2008. arxiv.org/abs/0705.3097
* J.G. Hartnett, K. Hirano, Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 318, No. 1 & 2, pp. 13-24, 2008. arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885
* J.G. Hartnett, A valid finite bounded expanding Carmelian universe without dark matter, Int. J. Theoretical Physics, 52(12): 4360–4366, 2013. arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508367
(Links)

He obviously must know what he’s talking about to get published in these journals, even as recent as 2013.

]For example, did you read either of the articles that I linked? They being this one on genetic clocks or this one on natural chemical ‘origin of life’.

No. The genetic clocks one is from creation.com, who have a Statement of Faith, so I automatically will not read articles from such people. It's a personal rule for myself, and one I wish others would take. There's no point in reading what is labelled research, if its from people who admit to having a predetermined conclusion before they've even gone out to do their research.
As for the "origin of life", IDEA do admit to having a major Christian bias. At least they're upfront about it. I notice they don't seem to have Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists doing research...or even atheists. They talk a great deal about trying to separate religion from science...but when all of their board members (I checked as many as I could) are Christians, and the topic of ID is so closely related to religion...any credibility in my eyes goes out the window.

Refusing to read material on the basis of its source, it tantamount to an ad hominem. That is a perfect example of that which I described in a previous post, ‘extreme bias’ or in this instance, closed mindedness. What would your response be if I stated that I refuse to read papers published in secular journals? Would that be an acceptable argument? Though, it does explain why you cannot argue against the science of the articles, you’ve not read them to be able to argue. Again, I challenge you to read either genetic clocks or natural chemical ‘origin of life’ or both and argue the actual science, not the source.

Be that as it may, it still does not absolve you of citing sites, groups, publications that are guilty of far greater "sins".

Well, as to the extent of the “sins�, that is your opinion and an opinion only as you’ve admitted that you haven’t read the articles, so your argument is baseless. They, as does any researcher, formulate an hypothesis according to their paradigm and then determined whether the interpretation of the evidence fits the hypothesis.

Or was your judgement clouded by your bias?

Why is it you link to sites like ICR, or the Discovery Institute, who are guilty of bias but to a greater degree than anyone else? If you're going to criticise me or anyone else about our bias, best make sure you're not ignoring yourself. If you don't look at your own biases, what you say here on this site comes across as massively hypocritical.

I believe I’ve previously stated that “everyone has bias to one extent or another�, so that would include me. As to the extent of guilt of bias of these sites and working toward a preconceived conclusion, at least these journals are open about their paradigm. Whereas secular journals assume that you know and understand their position/paradigm/worldview and accept it a fact. And the research is carried out in order to support the paradigm (preconceived conclusion) and Heaven forbid if you were to interpret the evidence against such. My goodness, how would ‘science’ ever survive? Then again, how would science ever progress if we can only look at one possible conclusion. I, at least, am willing and have read papers contrary to my current paradigm and weigh up the interpretations of the evidences. Try it sometime, you might enlighten yourself.

Have a good day!
Still small

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 61 by Still small]

You’re probably correct, they’d probably have just as much chance as a creationist getting Nature or Science to publish something which goes against the consensus of the naturalistic materialism paradigm.

Yes, but what you seem to not be able to see, or are not considering are the reasons why each side is not willing to publish.
The reason AiG/ICR/et al would not publish research that indicates an old earth + evolution is because they have already declared and predetermined what the answers "should" be, when it comes to the big questions of life, the universe and everything.
The reason mainstream science journals don't publish creationist "research" is not because of a declared and predetermined conclusion, an announcement of what the answers "should" be, when it comes to the big questions of life, the universe and everything.
I challenge you to find me just one example from mainstream/secular science journals/groups/organisations that has the equivalent of AiG/ICR's Statement of Faith.

Though, a number of the creationist authors have had papers published in such journals as long as it wasn’t overtly pushing creationism. Take John Hartnett, (physics and cosmology) for example -

For someone active with Creation Ministries International, I have to take anything and everything he says with a grain of salt. He operates under the rubric of the same Statements of Faith that I have previously talked about. The Bible is right, and cannot ever be wrong, according to him and CMI. This taints his research. He has predetermined conclusions, things he regards as true, before and after he completes his quote unquote research.

Ground-breaking cosmological papers for secular journals

I'm not going to read the papers for two reasons
1) As just mentioned, his involvement with CMI and Statements of Faith. I cannot trust such a person. It's "fruit of the poisonous tree". It's as egregious as if a detective literally tells you that they consider all arrestees guilty, both before and after they conduct investigations.
2) I don't have the expertise to read them. I've only got a secondary school level education (high school for Americans). I literally can't read the equations in some of the papers, as they use weird symbols (like an upside down triangle) that I do not understand.

Refusing to read material on the basis of its source, it tantamount to an ad hominem.

Normally yes...but do you know what the counter to an ad hom accusation is? Showing that there is justification for it.
My justification is that these SoF people have predetermined conclusions to any research they do, BEFORE they do the research. As I said before, it's like a detective saying to the court "I considered the person arrested to be guilty, before I did the investigation". Why should the court allow that testimony to remain on the record? Shouldn't the court strike his testimony from the record, as his predetermined conclusion would have tainted his investigation, had him (whether consciously or unconsciously) discard any exculpatory evidence? (if you don't know what that means, exculpatory is evidence that is helpful to the defendant).

That is a perfect example of that which I described in a previous post, ‘extreme bias’ or in this instance, closed mindedness.

Look at the Creationists with their Statements of Faith. Please examine what it is they say and please somehow tell me, convince me, that THEY are not guilty of "extreme bias" to a far greater degree than I supposedly am!
The only thing I require of scientists when performing research is that they do not have predetermined conclusions.
Creationists would disagree with that. AiG/ICR/Discovery Institute...they all require their scientists to have predetermined conclusions.

What would your response be if I stated that I refuse to read papers published in secular journals? Would that be an acceptable argument?

I would ask you your reason why. Simply stating "I don't read them" without giving a reason would be stupid, I hope you'll agree. Whereas I have given a reason why I don't read Statement-of-Faith research.

Though, it does explain why you cannot argue against the science of the articles, you’ve not read them to be able to argue.

Their "science" is a product of a predetermined conclusion. Change my mind.

Again, I challenge you to read either genetic clocks or natural chemical ‘origin of life’ or both and argue the actual science, not the source.

Here's my response to that...
Will you accept anything I say as potentially (not automatically being valid) but even just potentially being valid arguments, or do you yourself (yes you Still Small) also have a Statement of Faith similar to AiG/ICR/CMI?
This is an important question. If you answer yes to having a SoF, then there's no point in me reading any papers/articles you link me to. Your predetermined conclusion prevents you from being honest in terms of scientific research.
If you do not have a SoF, then will you disavow AiG/ICR/CMI? Refuse to link to them in the future?

They, as does any researcher, formulate an hypothesis according to their paradigm and then determined whether the interpretation of the evidence fits the hypothesis.

NO THEY DO NOT. Granted, I couldn't find a SoF for IDEA, but creation.com DO NOT AND HAVE NOT AND NEVER WILL follow the paradigm you just said. They do not follow the evidence where it leads. They start out declaring that the universe is a few thousand years old. They thus, must by default discard ANYTHING that contradicts that.

I believe I’ve previously stated that “everyone has bias to one extent or another�, so that would include me.

So why criticise other people for having biases? Again, I ask are you immune from criticism in this regard?

As to the extent of guilt of bias of these sites and working toward a preconceived conclusion, at least these journals are open about their paradigm.

Why do you cite them then? Why do you promote them? Why do you say that what they teach is true?

Whereas secular journals assume that you know and understand their position/paradigm/worldview and accept it a fact.

They do...? Evidence please of this. Do secular journals even have worldviews? Do they have predetermined conclusions a la ICR/AiG?

And the research is carried out in order to support the paradigm (preconceived conclusion) and Heaven forbid if you were to interpret the evidence against such.

Ah, so they DO have predetermined conclusions like AiG/ICR...how is what these secular journals supposedly do (for the record, I don't believe you) so much worse than AiG/ICR/et al? Why is it you are chastising secular journals for the sin that creationist groups are all too proud of declaring they do?
With creationist SoF groups, there is no investigation to be done to see if they are guilty of a bias, of a predetermined conclusion. They admit it, right off the bat, but for some mad reason are not ashamed of it. Where's your evidence that secular journals are the same?

So...Heaven forbid someone interpreted evidence against a young & god-created earth. Strange how you still seem comfortable citing ICR/et al.
All I'm seeing is the world's biggest case of projection from you. Literally. Everything that you accuse the secular journals of, you and your groups are guilty of. You're a hypocrite.

I, at least, am willing and have read papers contrary to my current paradigm and weigh up the interpretations of the evidences.

I at least do not waste my time reading papers (or would, if I had the technical expertise necessary) from groups who have declarations that require them to lie.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 60 by Still small]

Would you please list a paper where all the original kinds are explained and then traced through fossils to current living things.

Make sure that it explains all the different humans that have lived in the past.

If you can't do this then yes, creationists are liars. And hypocrites for trying to put down evolution. There have been multiple humans in the past that had what we would deem religion but not worship of the Jewish god.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 60 by Still small]

Would you please list a paper where all the original kinds are explained and then traced through fossils to current living things.

Make sure that it explains all the different humans that have lived in the past.

If you can't do this then yes, creationists are liars. And hypocrites for trying to put down evolution. There have been multiple humans in the past that had what we would deem religion but not worship of the Jewish god.

Sure, once you have listed the names of every star in the . . . . nah, that’s probably a bit much. Make it that you list the names of every galaxy in the universe, (not just those that astronomers know and have labelled but every galaxy).

If you can’t do this then yes, (according to your rules) naturalistic materialists are liars and hypocrites.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Donray]

[Replying to post 64 by Still small]

Are you a complete idiot or only a majority idiot? All the galaxies in the universe do not have names by humans or is that another thing you are ignorant about? You should know all the names since your god gave them names when it created them.

Again, you are just showing your ignorance. You belive in "kinds" but have absolutely no idea what it means except you are told by your religious leaders you must belive in "KINDS" and do everything you can to try to show evolution is wrong.

At least one would think that you would have some idea of these kinds that went into the ark. After all, it did not happen that long ago. Since your belive in the Noah myth why don't you at least explin the spread of animals since that time and why there are different animals on different continents.

You and your fellow creationist cannot explain anything and can only try to discredit evolution. You cannot answer basic questions about your beliefs. Your beliefs have been brainwashed into you since birth and therefore you cannot listen to other ideas.

I guess you have no article that explains kinds and yet you are writing things about all these creation articles and yet none explin "KINDS". Yet you think evolution is wrong and there is proof open proof that it is correct and you offer no proof about your theory except god told it is true.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 60 by Still small]

Rikuoamero, tell me, why do you think these authors write as they do? They have studied for years to gain, in many cases, their PhDs. Done years of research in their particular field, all for what? Do you think they are deliberately lying in their papers when written from a Creationist world view?

This wasn't directed to me, but I think the answer to this is obvious. Their goal is to justify their religious views by claiming that they are consistent with modern science, and therefore should be accepted as reality. So they go to great efforts to try and make science fit the biblical narratives in any way they can in order to claim legitimacy. But when presented with overwhelming evidence against these views (such as a ~6000 year old earth) they spend their efforts trying to discredit things like radiometric dating.

Why do they never attack scientific principles that don't disprove a particular religious viewpoint, and only attack those that do? I've never heard a creationist claim that the U.S. couldn't have dropped fission bombs on Japan in 1945, but they will argue against radiometric dating purely because it contradicts a young earth. The same atomic physics are used in both cases, with radiometric dating being a far simpler application of the same physics, but it is only radiometric dating that is attacked by creationists because it proves an old earth.

Ditto for any other area of science. If it doesn't contradict a specific religious view you never hear a peep out of these creation "scientists" ... their goal is to discredit any science that contradicts their religious views and that is why they do what they do. They want to legitimize their views as being consistent with modern science. The AIG meteorite dating articles I"ve posted here many times before is a perfect example of this, and when they can't discredit the experimental data that they themselves summarize comprehensively, their response is to state that it is in conflict with biblical "fact" and therefore cannot be correct (statement of faith again), at which point they come up with all kinds of ridiculous explanations such as god changed the structure of matter at some point (with no evidence to back up this assumption) and that magically explains everything.

So they do this simply to try and legitimize their religious views, and complete screwballs like Russell Humphreys just outright invent initial conditions with no basis whatsoever (eg. planets started out as balls of H2O and god magically aligned all the nuclear spins of the H-atoms to create the initial magnetic fields) in order to arrive at the predetermined conclusion. This isn't science or anything close to science. It is pure pseudoscience done to try and legitimize their religious views, and nothing more.

[EarthScienceguy]

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.

I am not understanding what you are trying to get at with this. I have explained elsewhere on this sight how Neanderthals are modern humans.

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?

Kinds correspond to families more or less. The problem is the Bible does not classify life like modern science does. The Bible begins classifying animals by the day they were formed. Which more or less corresponds to the animals type of locomotion. The Bible would classify all organisms in 5 different categories, vegetation, Sea creatures, Winged and air animals, land creatures, and Humans. Noah brought on the ark with him animals that were created on days 5 and 6, which corresponds to winged animals, air animals, land creatures and humans.

With regards to what makes a kind, we are unclear on this point because there has not been enough experimentation on the extent at which organisms can adapt to their environment. But most of the time it is considered to correspond with family on the Carolus Linnaeus taxonomy more or less.

What is adaptation and not evolution?

I did express what I meant by this which was quoted above. And I quote myself and say again.

Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

Heredity has been observed and understood for over a hundred years thanks to Mendel.

What has not been observed is a mutation that has not had a corresponding lost of function.

What has been observed is an increase in the genetic load of each successive generation.

What has not been observed is natural selection decreasing the genetic load. In a process known as Muller's Ratchet.

Muller's Ratchet in Asexual Populations Doomed to Extinction
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/448563v2

Muller's Ratchet and the Degeneration of Y Chromosomes: A Simulation Study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567394/

Muller's ratchet makes evolution impossible.

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.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... lenecks_01
This is what is seen in humans and other animals.

Articles on the animals of each kind

Mammals.

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... ark-kinds/

Bird Kinds

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... ark-kinds/

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 67 by EarthScienceguy]

I have explained elsewhere on this sight how Neanderthals are modern humans.

You stated it, but didn't explain it. They are classified as either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, making them either an extinct species separate from Homo sapiens, or an extinct subspecies of Homo sapien. The term "modern humans", or more commonly "anatomically modern humans", generally refers only to Homo sapiens, but I don't think the issue is resolved as to whether Neanderthals were a separate species, or a subspecies.

There is no such ambiguity for Homo erectus though ... definitely a different species. Do you agree with that classification?

What has not been observed is a mutation that has not had a corresponding lost of function.

What about Polydactyly? Is having an extra finger or toe a loss of function? What about the various mutations that allow humans to better survive high altitudes and the associated reduction in oxygen levels? There are heritable behavioral and genetic changes involved in this, and different groups have evolved different mutations. These mutations do not represent a loss of function. There are many other examples where mutations do not represent a loss of function.

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.

Although that sentence doesn't actually make grammatical sense, you are not likely to find such a list in the real science world because the ARK in the Noah's flood myth never actually existed. It is an element in a story that is demonstrably false, as shown by real science which proves that the diversity and distribution of life on our planet today could not possibly have arisen from just 8 human beings starting 4,300 years ago, along with the collection of animals that the myth describes as being on the ark.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

You stated it, but didn't explain it. They are classified as either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, making them either an extinct species separate from Homo sapiens, or an extinct subspecies of Homo sapien. The term "modern humans", or more commonly "anatomically modern humans", generally refers only to Homo sapiens, but I don't think the issue is resolved as to whether Neanderthals were a separate species, or a subspecies.

There is no such ambiguity for Homo erectus though ... definitely a different species. Do you agree with that classification?

Oh my Goodness, yes I did it. There is a long conversation about this somewhere on this sight. But anyway.

One of the distinctions between humans and primates is the brain size. In Fact one of the theories of evolutionary thought for the difference between primates and humans is the for some reason the brain size of humans were able to increase in size where as the brain size of the primate could not. Neanderthals brain size was actually larger than modern humans. So they would have had a larger brain to body size ratio which is the usual determination of intelligence of an organism. Like for example a dolphins brain is smaller than a whale's brain but the dolphin has a much larger brain to body ratio.

Neanderthals had burial rituals, tools, tool belts all the characteristics of modern humans. Even most Europeans have Neanderthal DNA.

They were modern humans.

What about Polydactyly? Is having an extra finger or toe a loss of function? What about the various mutations that allow humans to better survive high altitudes and the associated reduction in oxygen levels? There are heritable behavioral and genetic changes involved in this, and different groups have evolved different mutations. These mutations do not represent a loss of function. There are many other examples where mutations do not represent a loss of function.

None of these are new functions either. A finger is still a finger. If an extra finger was some sort of advantage then it would have been selected out and everyone would have six fingers. And anyone can increase the anyone's alveo density will increase if they live in the mountains. That is why the Olympic training center is in Denver Colorado. All of these examples are duplications of functions that we already have.

This not evolution. Evolution says that the genome is changed by duplication and then mutation. Now if the finger duplicated and then changed into trunk that the person could breath through. That would evolution. Or if the foot was duplicated and then changed to a duck foot that would also be evolution. And it would also be a Dr. Seuss book. But since both are make believe I think it will not happen.

Although that sentence doesn't actually make grammatical sense, you are not likely to find such a list in the real science world because the ARK in the Noah's flood myth never actually existed. It is an element in a story that is demonstrably false, as shown by real science which proves that the diversity and distribution of life on our planet today could not possibly have arisen from just 8 human beings starting 4,300 years ago, along with the collection of animals that the myth describes as being on the ark.

Depends on which researchers you want to believe. And it really is all about belief. The theory of Evolution makes the standard plausibility not fact. Evolutionary theory attempts to make its views plausible. If they happen to become plausible then the "plausible observation" and be sold as fact. Duplication and mutation has never been observed as a means to increase the genetic information in the genome. In fact just the opposite is true. It has been observed time and time again that genetic load increases with time. And the current evolutionary thought of punctuated equilibrium makes situation even worse.

So if "plausibility" of any kind is the standard then Noah's flood more than meets the threshold for believability.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 69 by EarthScienceguy]

Now if the finger duplicated and then changed into trunk that the person could breath through. That would evolution. Or if the foot was duplicated and then changed to a duck foot that would also be evolution.

Your real name wouldn't happen to be Kirk Cameron, now would it?


Evolution is NOT JUST an appendage transforming wholesale into a different appendage. What you're arguing for here is Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort level of creationist apologetics.