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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 189 by EarthScienceguy]

I have shown time and time again how both evolution and big theory are both beliefs not based on observable data.

No ... you've stated this time and time again (assuming "big theory" is meant to be big bang). However, you've yet to provide a single credible source of evidence to back up these statements. So they remain nothing more than your personal opinion.

Censor me then, if you cannot stand the heat.

Heat? All you are doing is repeating the same things about origins and evolution in response to any issue that comes up, whether the subject is related to those two subjects or not. I'm simply repeating the same question that you refuse to respond to (ie. justify Humphreys claim that the planets started out as balls of H2O).

Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model

And what does this have to do with planets starting out as balls of H2O? It is just another creationist website article touting the Humphreys paper, and misinterpreting geologic data to suit their young earth nonsense. I saw no comments in it supporting the idea that the planets started as balls of H2O.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 190 by DrNoGods]

Humphreys junk science is an unfunny joke. His theory is so bad he has to propose a secret dimension. "... he seeks to challenge a foundational dogma of general relativity and postulates an additional spacetime dimension, one which grants God ample liberty to hold the earth in a “timeless� region of suspended animation while the rest of the universe ages for billions of years...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

This silliness is laughable on its face, as he carves out exception after exception for our planet. Again, the similarities in logic and false 'facts' between 'young Earth' nonsense and flat Earth nonsense are striking.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 190 by DrNoGods]

Humphreys junk science is an unfunny joke. His theory is so bad he has to propose a secret dimension. "... he seeks to challenge a foundational dogma of general relativity and postulates an additional spacetime dimension, one which grants God ample liberty to hold the earth in a “timeless� region of suspended animation while the rest of the universe ages for billions of years...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

This silliness is laughable on its face, as he carves out exception after exception for our planet. Again, the similarities in logic and false 'facts' between 'young Earth' nonsense and flat Earth nonsense are striking.

It is truly a powerful feeling to be able to convince yourself that you have it right (for example, the earth is flat) and all of science has it wrong.

Too empowering of a thing for some to avoid falling for it would seem.

So too would be the ability to convince yourself that you know how the universe came about.

[John Human]

Um, *ahem*

1. As I have pointed out elsewhere around this forum, "Creation Science" depends on the pre-supposition that a literalist interpretation of the Bible is infallibly true. That view seems absurd to me. I have mentioned the example of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" being an obvious metaphor (euphemism) for masturbation/sex. I have also repeatedly mentioned the three interlocking doctrines (that Jesus never said) -- original sin, virgin birth, sacrifice on the cross -- with the obvious supposition that they were fabricated as one piece to mythologize the historical Jesus (with the useful function of preserving the basic message enshrined in Jesus Christ's two fundamental commandments).

2. With that said, there is no pre-existing reason to throw out the baby (some sort of "intelligent design" -- that idea is as old as Plato) with the bath water of Creation Science. Maybe or maybe not -- intelligent design is a separate issue.

3. The theory of evolution is based on the solid evidence of the fossil record showing a progression of more-and-more complex creatures, in chains with clear similarities, and all made up of the same building blocks: genes arranged into chromosomes.

4. With that said, the purported explanatory mechanism of "natural selection," applied to the appearance of new species with ever-increasing numbers of chromosomes (how do you get a "random mutation" that adds a whole pair of chromosomes, one from each parent), is nothing more than a cotton-candy fairy tale, evidently designed as a slick apologetic to soothe the doubts of true-believing atheist materialists.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 193 by John Human]

4. With that said, the purported explanatory mechanism of "natural selection," applied to the appearance of new species with ever-increasing numbers of chromosomes (how do you get a "random mutation" that adds a whole pair of chromosomes, one from each parent), is nothing more than a cotton-candy fairy tale, evidently designed as a slick apologetic to soothe the doubts of true-believing atheist materialists.

And how then do you explain the fact that the extant great apes that us Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with (ie. chimpanzees and bonobos) have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we only have 23 pairs? This is because chromosomes 2a and 2b in the apes fused to create just one chromosome in Homo sapiens, so it was not a case of a new species with "ever-increasing numbers of chromosomes", but a reduction in the total number of chromosomes in the new species (us).

And how do you explain why hermit crabs have 254 chromosomes and we only have 46 (23 pairs) if we came along well after hermit crabs? Or the information in this table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o ... some_count

What were you describing that predicts ever-increasing numbers of chromosomes? It certainly isn't evolution by natural selection, or anything natural selection has been invoked to explain.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 194 by DrNoGods]

I'd be pleased to know the source of your presumption that two chromosomes in great apes fused to make a human chromosome. This would require identical pairs of chromosomes in both sperm and egg fusing, so the resultant zygote would be functional. Are you going to propose with a straight face that such an event happened by random chance? Or perhaps it was a space alien graduate student's biology experiment. I suppose that would fit "intelligent design."

Regarding the number of chromosomes in horseshoe crabs, I never suggested that humans are descended from horseshoe crabs.

Another example with a high number of chromosomes is the "walking catfish" of Southeast Asia. Perhaps it is related to their ability to breathe both air and water.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 195 by John Human]

I'd be pleased to know the source of your presumption that two chromosomes in great apes fused to make a human chromosome.

This has been well know for some time. You must be a couple of decades out of touch with progress in evolution and genetics. Here are just a few references (of many):

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/88/20/9051.full.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2

This would require identical pairs of chromosomes in both sperm and egg fusing, so the resultant zygote would be functional. Are you going to propose with a straight face that such an event happened by random chance? Or perhaps it was a space alien graduate student's biology experiment. I suppose that would fit "intelligent design."

Try reading some actual science papers on the subject and you can find out how it happened. Again, you seem to be grossly out of date on what has happened in the world of genetics research since the late 1980s.

Regarding the number of chromosomes in horseshoe crabs, I never suggested that humans are descended from horseshoe crabs.

Neither did I. You suggested that evolution by natural selection requires an ever-increasing number of chromosomes, as well as more complexity. Neither is true and I gave an example (and many more from the Wikipedia table illustrating that this is not the case). Horseshoe crabs evolved long before humans did.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 196 by DrNoGods]

Your scorn is skirting the edges of incivility, and you are quick to jump to conclusions about what I am saying. You throw out a fistful of interesting links. One of them refers to the fusion as a "hypothesis." Another one speculates on an intermediate 47-chromosome stage. A third mentions differing numbers of chromosomes in different sub-groups of the same species, and points out that a fusion of chromosomes is not a cause of speciation. Perhaps that is the fundamental point.

You seem to be making the error of associating the fusion of chromosomes (which, by the way, I did not d

[John Human]

[Replying to post 196 by DrNoGods]

First of all, it does appear that my assumptions about chromosomes are/were a couple of decades out of date. I'm pleased to stand corrected.

Second, we might be talking past each other here, and the links you gave don't support your attitude of certainty. Your links point out the reasonable conclusion that, at some time in the indeterminate past, a fusion of chromosomes occurred, leading to a branching that led to great apes on the one hand, and humans and near relatives on the other. However, to re-state my earlier point, it is hard to imagine that this fusion happened by random chance, even though one of your links speculates about an intermediate 47-chromosome stage. Another of your links points out that chromosome fusion does NOT cause speciation.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 197 by John Human]

Another of your links points out that chromosome fusion does NOT cause speciation.

There are hundreds if not thousands of papers on this issue, including short summaries, and lots of amateur disussions on sites like Quora:

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science ... me-fusion/


https://www.quora.com/How-can-evolution ... -offspring
(Adam Wu's comment is useful)

And some of the links I sent are old (in genetics terms ... early 1990s). But it is the current "best" explanation of how we got to 46 chromosomes from 48 in our great ape ancestor.