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.

[Don McIntosh]

Of course you can find every creationist website with arguments against it, but that is driven by their "statement of faith" that anything contradicting the biblical narrative is, by definition, wrong. That isn't science by any measure. These websites start with the assumption that humans are special creatures created by a god (in his image if you are a Christian), then produce total pseudoscience against any real science that disproves that position. They can't acknowledge that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor because it would violate their statement of faith, and rule #1 is that this cannot be tolerated.

I'm a creationist with no formal training in the natural sciences whatever, but I must say, that last point is well taken. There is every reason to suspect that creationists are absolutely biased in their approach to the evidence.

But in itself, what does that mean for the strength or weakness of their arguments? Not much. Suppose Darwin's primary motivation in publishing the Origin was not to enlighten humanity to the wonders of science, but to beat Wallace to the presses with the same idea just to steal his thunder. Or to take some rhetorical swings at religion for the loss of his daughter Annie (Ernst Mayr says that Annie's death "seems to have extinguished the last traces of theism in Darwin"). Or just to make a name for himself. Etc. Would these less-than-purely objective or unscientific drivers invalidate Darwin's arguments for natural selection? Of course not.

Creationists and intelligent design advocates may be driven, even dogmatically driven, to deny evolution, but practically that may just mean that they are the only ones who care enough to challenge a scientific establishment that to date has clearly been in no mood for a challenge.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 219 by Don McIntosh]

But in itself, what does that mean for the strength or weakness of their arguments? Not much.

I agree 100% ... the arguments have to stand up to scrutiny regardless of the motivation for them. Darwin's book was published in 1859 ... 160 years ago ... and it is the cumulative body of observation and evidence since then that has supported his general idea.

Darwin (nor anyone else at the time) knew nothing of DNA or the genetic code, what a mutation was, etc. He only had very limited fossil evidence along with his own observations over many years. It was 1944 when Oswald Avery first showed the DNA was the "transforming substance", and 9 years later before Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin worked out the structure of DNA and work started on understanding the genetic code. Now we have sequenced full genomes for many modern humans, as well as extensive sequencing for Neanderthal, Denisovan, many apes, etc., and this genetics work has confirmed evolution by natural selection repeatedly.

What really hurts the creationist crowd is the cherry picking. Many are happy to accept what they call "micro" evolution (adaptation within a species) including natural selection's role. But because they can't accept that humans evolved from apes they had to create an artificial different level of adaptation they call "macro" evolution, which in reality is nothing more than more significant change leading to speciation due to the exact same process that causes "micro" evolution. If this did not have implications for human evolution I doubt we'd hear anything from the creationists complaining about "macro" evolution. They only attack science issues that contradict the biblical narrative, and the idea that humans are no different than any other animal as far as how we came to be would destroy that narrative (at least the part claiming that humans are special creations unlike any other animal). But the evidence for humans evolving from apes is just too overwhelming to ignore.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 219 by Don McIntosh]

Creationists and intelligent design advocates may be driven, even dogmatically driven, to deny evolution, but practically that may just mean that they are the only ones who care enough to challenge a scientific establishment that to date has clearly been in no mood for a challenge.

Simply denying evolution is not in itself any form of a challenge. If creationists genuinely cared about challenging evolution they would focus their efforts on presenting actual evidence which refutes the theory. This has not happened. All we get is the equivalent of "yeah, but...". Too many of the critics do not even demonstrate sufficient understanding of what they are attempting to criticise. Case in point is the acceptance of micro-evolution as a valid concept while at the same time denying the concept of macro-evolution. Instead of realising that there is only the one evolution distinguished by the outcomes over different time scales, we get the dumbing down of the argument to "we only ever see dogs coming from dogs". That statement is true but it in no way contradicts evolution.

Finally, science is all about the search for truth. Science makes progress through challenges to accepted theories, but accepted theories can only be overturned when the evidence demands it. On the other hand, accepted mores in religion are not open to challenge. For many creationists evolution is a challenge to their beliefs, but those beliefs are not supported by any evidence in the way that the theory of evolution is supported. Consequently all we get is denial accompanied by a lot of hot air and hand waving.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 211 by DrNoGods]

And the huge majority of educated people,[] believe that humans evolved from apes. It is the majority view, and it has been shown conclusively to be correct. Anyone who denies it in 2019 is no different than a flat earther.

" Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either"

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libr ... cat02.html

^ PBS are no different from flat Earthers? I would agree in many respects, but I do agree with them on this issue.

I think we touched on the old belief that dogs evolved from wolves, and this belief still lingers today in many vestiges of pop-science also.

But the best ToE can do scientifically, in the 21st C, is to posit an entirely speculative 'common ancestor', not the direct link that was assumed in the Victorian age Darwinian model via superficial morphological comparisons. DNA has revealed that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye..

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 222 by Guy Threepwood]

but we didn't evolve from apes, either"

Yes we did, and the PBS article you linked is consistent with everyone else in saying that we share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos (which most refer to as some type of great ape, even if PBS decide to call it something else). Smithsonian have a much more complete description:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

You can click on each group and get more information. From that same website:

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

where they have this comment:

"From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes."

I think we touched on the old belief that dogs evolved from wolves, and this belief still lingers today in many vestiges of pop-science also.

You don't believe that dogs evolved from wolves, or that they share a common ancestor? This isn't an "old belief", or "pop science", but has been extensively studied via their genetics. We have full genomes for many wolves and dogs to prove the connection. Wikipedia have a good summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of ... mestic_dog

which includes a  phylogenetic tree. There are many others of course, but there is no doubt that dogs evolved either directly from wolves, or share a common ancestor with them.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/18/1599 ... ion-wolves

But the best ToE can do scientifically, in the 21st C, is to posit an entirely speculative 'common ancestor', not the direct link that was assumed in the Victorian age Darwinian model via superficial morphological comparisons. DNA has revealed that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

We're no longer in the Victorian age, and Darwin's "model" has undergone substantial change just like most other 150 year old ideas in science, and especially since the "genetic age" started in the 1950s. How long do you think the Piltdown Man hoax would have lasted in 2019? Probably wouldn't even have made it into a YouTube video before basic DNA tests destroyed it.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 223 by DrNoGods]

the PBS article you linked is consistent with everyone else in saying that we share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos (which most refer to as some type of great ape

but there is no doubt that dogs evolved either directly from wolves, or share a common ancestor with them.

^ so which is it? direct or 'shared'? One 'ancestor' is observable, the other hypothetical- hardly an insignificant distinction is it?

As you know; observable beats hypothetical any day, hence the direct 'missing link' lineage 'proven' by Piltdown man, was held as a fundamental cornerstone of human evolution, as taught in major museums around the world for decades, and even used as critical evidence in legal cases to have Darwinian evolution taught in schools and alternate theories banned- much trickier to base all this on a purely hypothetical link..

And these are two examples of what David Raup (Chicago Field Museum) was referring to when he said " ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time."

In both cases new scientific evidence has pushed the ancestors back into the shadows, from known observable species, to unknown, hypothetical, speculative ones. and this is the pattern we see across the board.

If an unknown human ancestor is still 'referred to' as an ape, to what degree is this demanded by observable evidence, and to what degree is it simply demanded by the theory?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Then read the dozens or hundreds of other papers on the subject if you don't understand the ones I gave as examples. They are explaining observations, not speculating on how what they are seeing could not happen because of some religious bias clouding their analysis.

No there are not. There are none that describe the how this happens.


Quote:
Yet none of this chimp end cap satDNA is located in the human genome, much less on chromosome 2 near the fusion site

And why would it be? Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Or do you not realize that? We evolved from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos. So chimps could have all kinds of mutations that don't appear in humans because they split off from the common ancestor and did not give rise to humans. Have at look at this again:

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

The fusion event most likely happened after the split between humans, and chimps/bonobos. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees.

More faith comments. They should still have similarities.

Quote:
The problem is that fusion could not have happen at this position.

Then what is your alternative explanation for why humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48? All you are doing is saying the fusion couldn't happen, despite evidence that it did.

No, I am saying there is no evidence. That is my point. You have still not explained how telomere to telomere fusion does not end in cancer and death when that is what we observe in all other cases.

The fusion event would be impossible because of the active genes that are in this fusion site. The production of red blood cells and 255 other different cells and tissue. Where else would these functions occur if they were not part of chromosome 2? Are you trying to say that bono's and early humans did not have blood or the other 255 cells? That seems kind of far fetched.

Follow with blind faith if you wish. But there are no answers to the problems that I listed.

.

Quote:
In fact they are not called theories until every detail has been worked out.


Do you really not understand how science works to the point of making a statement like that? You have railed against the scientific theory of evolution from day one, and now claim that every detail of it must be worked out because it is called a theory. So you now believe ToE because it is, in fact, a formal scientific theory? Glad we got that sorted out.

The transition from hypothesis to theory happens when sufficient observation, evidence, experiments, analysis, etc. confirm the hypothesis to be correct. But nearly all scientific theories have finer details that are continuously tweaked as more information comes in. Newtons theory of gravity is a perfect example. It explained most observations except for a few exceptions at the time (eg. orbit of Mercury), then Einstein came along with General Relativity and was able to explain Mercury's orbit and predict a whole slew of other things that have now been confirmed by observation. This doesn't negate Newton's theory of gravity ... it refines it and this sort of thing happens all the time. The book isn't closed on any theory once it reaches that status ... details are constantly refined as new technology allows more detailed observations, etc.

I usually get paid for teaching people the difference between a law and a theory but I will give this information to you for free.

It is not Newton's theory of gravity it is Newton's LAW of gravity. There is a big difference between a law and a theory. A law is an observation of what is always true.

Newton's Law of universal gravitation states the following.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

Newton was simply saying that gravity obeys the inverse square LAW. Newton did not attempt to describe what caused gravity he had no idea what caused gravity. He simply describe his observations in a mathematical expression.

Or the laws of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.

They do not explain why energy cannot be created or destroyed or why entropy always increases they are simply stating a fact about nature.

Same is true of the LAW of Biogenesis. Life comes from life. It does not explain why life comes from life but simply that it does.

Now a theory is an explanation of why something happen. It would be the "because" part of the hypothesis.

The theory of gravity came from Einstein. He explained what gravity was an indention in the fabric of space. It was Einstein's theory that explained the deviation from Newton's law of gravity. In his explanation Einstein had to explain why gravity would affect light differently near more massive objects.

Kinetic and particle theory explains the laws of thermodynamics. How well theories explain laws is how a theory is evaluated, if they cannot explain every observation they are considered at best incomplete and more than likely wrong.

Take for example quantum theory. Many scientist believe that quantum theory is incomplete because of some of the bizarre predictions that it makes. Along with the fact that it does not merge well relativity. So because it cannot explain everything about that we observed. It is thought of as an incomplete theory.

Quote:
Natural selection is not evolution.

Right ... it is the process by which beneficial DNA changes (such as the chromosome 2 fusion event) remain in a population while deleterious DNA changes do not.

That is not true. Deleterious mutations are observed building up in the genome not being selected out. The idea that deleterious mutations are selected out is not observed it is assumed.

Through selective breeding a wolf can produce a chichiwa, but selective breeding can not produce a chichawa. Information is lost in survival of the fittest not gain. The theory has no observed method of increasing information in a genome.

There is no alternative to turn to other than some sort of creation scenario.

The bankruptcy of evolutionary theory is the reason why we have also seen an increase in the belief that "life here began out there." Panspermia hypothesis has been put forward by notables such as Dawkins, Brian Green.

To put it in terms of NASA

Yet some argue that signs of Earth life 3.8 billion years ago have been detected in the rock record, and lifeforms were certainly present 3.5 billion years ago. Considering the painfully slow pace of early evolution — the planet, after all, supported only single-cell life for several billion years before multicellular life emerged — some researchers are skeptical about the likelihood of DNA-based life evolving in the relatively short window between when Earth became cool enough to support life and the earliest evidence of actual life.

So what else, from a scientific as opposed to a religious perspective, might have set into motion the process that made life out of non-life?
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-s ... anspermia/

Evolution has failed to explain how life began here on earth. And must search elsewhere for its beginnings.

To put it bluntly know I see no evidence for evolution.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 225 by EarthScienceguy]

Where else would these functions occur if they were not part of chromosome 2.

A fusion event could occur without losing any genes. A fusion event itself only says that two (or more) chromosomal sections fused ... it doesn't follow that any information is lost. You're assuming information was lost, without any basis for that assumption.

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.

There is no alternative to turn to other than some sort of creation scenario.

That speaks for itself.

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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

A fusion event could occur without losing any genes. A fusion event itself only says that two (or more) chromosomal sections fused ... it doesn't follow that any information is lost. You're assuming information was lost, without any basis for that assumption.

This could not be the case.

1. There is no synteny with chimp dna around the make believe site. So there had to have been lost genes.

2. The putative fusion sequence is highly degenerate given the inferred evolutionary timescale. In their paper, Fan et al. (2002a, p. 1657) state “Only 48% of the 127 repeats in RP11–395L14 and 46% of the 158 repeats in M73018 are perfect TTAGGG or TTGGGG units� and “If the fusion occurred within the telomeric repeat arrays less than ~6 Mya, why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate?�

So there had to be lost information.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 221 by brunumb]

Simply denying evolution is not in itself any form of a challenge. If creationists genuinely cared about challenging evolution they would focus their efforts on presenting actual evidence which refutes the theory. This has not happened. All we get is the equivalent of "yeah, but...". Too many of the critics do not even demonstrate sufficient understanding of what they are attempting to criticise. Case in point is the acceptance of micro-evolution as a valid concept while at the same time denying the concept of macro-evolution. Instead of realising that there is only the one evolution distinguished by the outcomes over different time scales, we get the dumbing down of the argument to "we only ever see dogs coming from dogs". That statement is true but it in no way contradicts evolution.

Yes it kind of does.

A wolf through selective breeding can produce a Chiwawa. But a Chiwawa through selective breeding could never produce a wolf. Why, you ask? Because of a lost of information. So that first one celled organism must have had whole lot of information in it. WOW!!

Oh, wait. Yea mutations, that's the ticket right. But the problem with that is that if the present is the key to the past. Like Charles Lyell says. Then nothing could have lived for millions of years because of genetic load. We do not see genetic load being selected out today so on what basis could we assume that it happened in the past.