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.

[Donray]

Here is the creationist timeline from the bible that The two creationists on this thread belive.

The Bible provides a reliable history of the universe and the events described in the Bible, particularly in the early chapters of Genesis, provide a framework through which we can interpret science and history. Creation: 4004 BC The Flood: 2348 BC Tower of Babel: 2246 BC Abraham: 1996 BC Joseph: 1745 BC Moses and the Exodus: 1491 BC David: 1085 BC Monarchy divides: 975 BC Assyrian destruction of Israel: 722 BC Babylonian captivity of Judah: 586 BC Jesus: 4 BC

[John Human]

[Replying to post 234 by John Human]

Saying so doesn't make it true. (And once again you conflate "evolution" with natural selection.) I challenge you to explain how the interlocking structures of the human locking knee came into being gradually, step-by-step. Such a supposition simply boggles the mind.

Don't take my word for it. The subject of ToE has been written about for over 150 years and is documented in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, thousands of books and websites, etc. My comment was "complex structures can be built via evolution through many small steps over long periods of time, whether it be knees or eyes." That is a general statement and you reply with "Saying so doesn't make it true.' It is not me "saying so." It is the cumulative work of thousands of scientists for over a century "saying so."

Once again, saying so (your vague comment alleging "cumulative work" regarding natural selection as the mechanism of speciation) doesn't make it true. I have to wonder if you are mis-representing scientific work to wriggle out of the corner that you have painted yourself into with your bald statement that human evolution by means of natural selection has been proven.

If you just provide a bunch of links, without any discussion, you are just blowing pixie dust into our eyes. Please give a quotation with a source, so others can evaluate what you think someone else says. Likewise with your "cumulative work of thousands of scientists." You should be able to provide a quotation from at least one peer-reviewed article or book that presents the evidence and the chain of reasoning behind your claimed "proof" that humans evolved from [[strike]homo erectus[/strike] -- oops, you backed off from that one] by means of natural selection.

Once again, saying so doesn't make it true, and by providing links instead of quotations you repeatedly dodge the forum's expectation that you will provide evidence to back up your point. Once again:

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it.

My comment was "complex structures can be built via evolution through many small steps over long periods of time, whether it be knees or eyes."

Please provide some evidence to support your supposition that locking knee joints can evolve through many small steps over long periods of time.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 240 by John Human]

... behind your claimed "proof" that humans evolved from [ homo erectus -- oops, you backed off from that one] by means of natural selection.

I didn't back off of it because I never said it. You read that into a general statement presumably to make some point, although it isn't clear what that point is. Humans may very well have evolved from Homo erectus via several intermediaries along the way, in which case they did evolve "from Homo erectus." How pedantic do you intend to get?

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it.

Bold, red font doesn't help your case. First you complain about providing external links as supporting evidence (which you apparently didn't read), then complain that there is no supporting evidence being presented. Which is it? Do you want external links to support a claim, or do you want only someone's description of what is in those external links (so you can then complain that descriptions aren't useful without supporting external links)? This link, and its references, should be adequate to make the point that ToE is accepted as the current scientific consensus:

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

There is no need for me to post all of the supporting evidence to support the scientific consensus concerning ToE (if that were even possible here), because it is everywhere and has been for decades. You can find it anywhere (eg. a Google search). If I claimed that the sun is the center of our solar system and the planets orbit the sun, and referenced this external link:

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

would you similarly complain that I am presenting claims without any evidence? The situation with ToE and natural selection is no different ... it is the scientific consensus and got that way for reasons you can easily verify for yourself with barely any effort.

Please provide some evidence to support your supposition that locking knee joints can evolve through many small steps over long periods of time.

I posted this link in another thread today:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 0610046620

This is on similar complex structures (hip and pelvis), but demonstrates the same point. Or are you going to complain that it isn't specifically about knee joints? I've posted the Nillson and Pelger paper on eye evolution as another example of how complex structures can develop via ToE through small changes over long periods of time. And I could post many more because there are many more. But these two make the point clearly enough ... one based on actual observations and fossil evidence, one a theoretical analysis. The fossil record has plenty more but the above link is sufficient to make the point. Read it to get the details if you really want to see an example, rather than complaining (again) about supporting evidence that you've already been provided but obviously didn't read.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 240 by John Human]

... behind your claimed "proof" that humans evolved from [ homo erectus -- oops, you backed off from that one] by means of natural selection.

I didn't back off of it because I never said it. You read that into a general statement presumably to make some point, although it isn't clear what that point is. Humans may very well have evolved from Homo erectus via several intermediaries along the way, in which case they did evolve "from Homo erectus."

You are now implicitly admitting that you do not know what species modern humans evolved FROM. This is the basic point. To spell it out once again: You claimed that it has been "proven" that modern humans evolved (from another species, of course) by means of "natural selection." I have challenged you to provide supporting evidence, because I think that your claim is totally unsupported in the scientific literature.

First you complain about providing external links as supporting evidence (which you apparently didn't read), then complain that there is no supporting evidence being presented. Which is it? Do you want external links to support a claim, or do you want only someone's description of what is in those external links (so you can then complain that descriptions aren't useful without supporting external links)?

I want both a direct quote and a source (such as a link). This is standard. This is absolutely essential to prevent people from either misunderstanding or misrepresenting sources to make arguments that the sources never make. We cannot have a serious discussion if you do not provide both a quote and a source.

This link, and its references, should be adequate to make the point that ToE is accepted as the current scientific consensus:

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

Once again, you are equating "ToE" (theory of Evolution) with the specific question of whether speciation by means of natural selection is proven or even possible.

If there is anything in that article that YOU THINK supports your view concerning speciation by means of natural selection, then please provide a direct quote.

I was a wikipedia editor long enough to know how it works (and sometimes doesn't work). Wikipedia editors are required to cite "reliable sources" for all of their statements, but they don't always do that. In addition, sometimes wikipedia editors argue beyond what is in their sources, and then another editor comes along and checks the source and starts a discussion on the talk page and things get hashed out and the article gets further editing.

So, especially when citing a wikipedia article, please provide a quotation so I or anyone else can go to the article and check what source is cited. Who knows, I might jump in and edit the article if you're quoting something that is a blatant error.

But once again, a simple link is never sufficient as a source. Any article has several different points and different trains of reasoning. Often, some of these are better thought out than others, and often some but not all points are well documented. If you simply add a link, we have no way of knowing what YOU think is valuable in the article, and we have no way of knowing if you have even read the article at all.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 242 by John Human]

I have challenged you to provide supporting evidence, because I think that your claim is totally unsupported in the scientific literature.

This is obviously pointless. You don't want supporting evidence because no matter what it is you will simply claim it is wrong, change the subject, move the goal posts, and the usual anti-evolutionist tactics that you are employing (also practiced by creationists). If you knew anything at all about ToE you'd realize that EVERY living thing on Earth today evolved from earlier life forms, including humans.

So there is no reason to single out humans or any specific species ... pick any extant species of anything and it evolved via DNA changes acted upon by natural selection. That is the whole premise of ToE. Nitpicking about the exact path that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier Homo species (Homo erectus, or otherwise) is just an attempt to divert the discussion from the main question of speciation by natural selection and whether or not that is valid, and has been demonstrated.

It is and has, the supporting evidence of that being that ToE is now a formal scientific theory, and no longer considered a hypothesis. QED. If you want to quibble about that then submit your papers falsifying ToE, and when they pass peer review and are published in legitimate science journals (not some creationist website) then you can crow about how you were right and the last 150 years of scientific research was wrong. Until then, ToE will remain the best explanation for diversification of life on Earth, including speciation, and no amount of discussion on a website like this will change that.

So I'll repeat ... the supporting evidence for my claim is the status of ToE as a formal scientific theory, yet to be falsified. It didn't reach that status by accident. You're the one claiming it is false, yet you can't produce any evidence to support that claim other than "I don't believe it."

[Bust Nak]

Mr small brain... these idiots...

Moderator Warning

Insults are forbidden.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 242 by John Human]

I have challenged you to provide supporting evidence, because I think that your claim is totally unsupported in the scientific literature.

This is obviously pointless. You don't want supporting evidence because no matter what it is you will simply claim it is wrong, change the subject, move the goal posts, and the usual anti-evolutionist tactics that you are employing (also practiced by creationists). If you knew anything at all about ToE you'd realize that EVERY living thing on Earth today evolved from earlier life forms, including humans.

So there is no reason to single out humans or any specific species ... pick any extant species of anything and it evolved via DNA changes acted upon by natural selection. That is the whole premise of ToE. Nitpicking about the exact path that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier Homo species (Homo erectus, or otherwise) is just an attempt to divert the discussion from the main question of speciation by natural selection and whether or not that is valid, and has been demonstrated.

It is and has, the supporting evidence of that being that ToE is now a formal scientific theory, and no longer considered a hypothesis. QED. If you want to quibble about that then submit your papers falsifying ToE, and when they pass peer review and are published in legitimate science journals (not some creationist website) then you can crow about how you were right and the last 150 years of scientific research was wrong. Until then, ToE will remain the best explanation for diversification of life on Earth, including speciation, and no amount of discussion on a website like this will change that.

So I'll repeat ... the supporting evidence for my claim is the status of ToE as a formal scientific theory, yet to be falsified. It didn't reach that status by accident. You're the one claiming it is false, yet you can't produce any evidence to support that claim other than "I don't believe it."

People will believe that the earth is flat to elevate themselves above actual scientists. I hear it is very empowering to believe you have it right and that the scientific community doesn't have your knowledge yet.

I would assume the same comes in to play when discussing the ToE.

"Sure it's a bonafied scientific theory that describes a fact we observe, but 'I' actually have the real answers." Now watch me complain about the accepted theory".

[Still small]

Thus far the creationists have done nothing but try to disprove science. They have done nothing to prove creation by a god. Mr small brain give an example of how bears evolved from some form of bear and that in itself proved what Darwin said and did nothing to prove "Kinds and adaptation" that was the topic.

‘Thus far’ all you have shown is that you appear to have difficulty in understanding even basic explanations of adaptation within species. Or is it that you deny and/or misunderstand the role of epigenetics and allele expression which were clearly shown in my ‘bear’ example. This could possibly stem from your confusion as expressed in your opening statement, being “Thus far the creationists have done nothing but try to disprove science.� Creationists do not attempt to ‘disprove science’. What creationists do is simply present a different interpretation of the scientific evidence, starting from different assumptions (usually referred to as a priori), different from the starting assumptions used by secularists.

We let these idiots change the subject all the time instead of holding them to proving their stupid belief that in the last 4000 years all the diversity of life happen from a few unidentified KINDS on a ark.

Again, you make it clear that you do not understand adaptation via epigenetics and allele expression. Either that or you do not bother to even read, thoroughly, the responses to your posts. If you had, you would have seen in [post 18] that the 4000 years would be sufficient, via epigenetics and allele expression and actual observed mutation rates rather than extrapolated rates based on false assumptions.

I asked for a timeline and the only answer is for me to try to figure out genesis that has two different descriptions of creation. They cannot even describe a timeline for there belief system.

Again, if you had bothered to ask or do even a small amount of study regarding your assumed “two different descriptions of creation� you would have realised that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the entire cosmos and, as typical in Hebrew writings, Genesis 2 describes, in greater detail, events which occurred specifically on Day 6 (of Genesis 1) and within a specific location, being the Garden of Eden. Same creation story but focusing on different levels of events, (macro vs micro).

Has anyone else noticed that they just try to discredit science but cannot defend or describe there beliefs.

Again, we do not attempt to discredit ‘science’, just your interpretation of the scientific evidence as based upon your a priori.

Thus far creationists have not been able to provide a timeline for there theory.

False, I have provided it twice now in this thread alone as well as elsewhere on this ‘forum’. But then, in your very next post (post 239) you state -

�Here is the creationist timeline from the bible that The two creationists on this thread belive(sic).�

They have said they do not understand their god and how their god works.

Can you please link a reference to this claim as I cannot recall ever saying that exactly?

They are unable to fit their theory into known fossils.

What, specifically, are you referring to when saying ‘known fossils’? To give a complete description according to a global flood scenario would fill several pages on this forum. (And I seriously doubt you would bother to read any links if they were provided.) Do you mean such things as finding fossil remains of marine reptiles and sharks mixed with T-Rex and hadrosaur fossils, plus fossils of birds, freshwater turtles and fish, etc in the Hell Creek Formation which would be consistent with catastrophic water transportation and sedimentation from a huge deluge (link). Or do you mean stuff like massive coal beds consisting of vegetation which do not grow in swamps or water-logged conditions, i.e. the Latrobe Valley Basin, as often claimed in the slow-and-gradual process. Such deposits are better explained by catastrophic water transportation consistent with a global flood. So, what specifically do you want explained when you refer to fitting ‘their theory into known fossils’?

They have no logical explanation for Neanderthals that through DNA proven to be another modern human.

Once again, you appear to have not read responses to your post but, as usual, just ‘rant and rave’ with a lot of ‘hand-waving’ without really wanting an answer to your questions. I believe I gave you an answer in another thread (Link) where I explained -
“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 an-
atomically 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.�

So what is it you really want? Do you want answers to your questions which we can discuss like rational people? Or do you just want to ‘rant and rave’ with lots of hand-waving and name calling, indicating that you neither understand what it is you are ‘talking’ about nor that you want to understand it? I don’t care if you ever agree with me or not, just don’t act like an child about it, wasting my time.

This is your last chance. As I’ve said before, “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

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

So I'll repeat ... the supporting evidence for my claim is the status of ToE as a formal scientific theory, yet to be falsified. It didn't reach that status by accident. You're the one claiming it is false, yet you can't produce any evidence to support that claim other than "I don't believe it."

Are you serious? Evolution has been falsified so more than one time. Any other theory would have long been discarded. But because naturalist do not have an alternative theory to turn to.

1st. Evolution breaks the laws of tested genetics

"Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do."

2nd. Darwin's origin premise of gradual change of over time has been discredited by a lack of transitional forms.

"The work of Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, and Niles Eldredge was the foundation for the model of “punctuated equilibrium.� This model explained great periods of stasis in the fossil record punctuated with occasional periods of rapid change in small populations of a certain kind of creature. This rapid change is relative to the geologic time scale—acting over tens of thousands of years rather than millions."

3rd. Evolution does not occur when given optimal conditions when tested.

Dr. Richard Lenski, head of the study and Professor of Microbial Ecology at Michigan State University in 1988 started a experiment that has lasted for 30 years. The great evolutionary advancement was the the e coli were able to use utillize citrate but e coli had already been observed with the ability to use citrate in an low oxygen environment. So after 50,000 generations no evolution has been observed.

Fruit flies have been observed for over 100 years. For most of the past century--and especially since the discovery of DNA as a physical molecule carrying heritable information--the prevailing concept of neo-Darwinian evolution has held mutations to be the central generator of new and useful information. Thus, mutations have been given ample opportunity to prove themselves, if they are naturally selected, as having "the power to drive the evolution of all living things in the direction of positive improvement."(Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press)

Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now. But they haven't.

Evolution has been falsified many times. Now whether on not some people do not wish to give up a pet "theory" after it has been falsified is not a concern to thinking individuals.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 242 by John Human]

I have challenged you to provide supporting evidence, because I think that your claim is totally unsupported in the scientific literature.

This is obviously pointless. You don't want supporting evidence because no matter what it is you will simply claim it is wrong, change the subject, move the goal posts, and the usual anti-evolutionist tactics that you are employing (also practiced by creationists). If you knew anything at all about ToE you'd realize that EVERY living thing on Earth today evolved from earlier life forms, including humans.

So there is no reason to single out humans or any specific species ... pick any extant species of anything and it evolved via DNA changes acted upon by natural selection. That is the whole premise of ToE. Nitpicking about the exact path that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier Homo species (Homo erectus, or otherwise) is just an attempt to divert the discussion from the main question of speciation by natural selection and whether or not that is valid, and has been demonstrated.

I formally request that the moderators take note of Dr. NoGods' repeated groundless assertion that speciation of humans from ([strike]homo erectus[/strike] an un-named parent species) by means of "natural selection" (acting on hypothetical genetic mutations that create new species) has been proven, and his more general repeated groundless assertion that the so-called "theory" of evolution has been "proven" or "demonstrated." Dr. NoGods says this over and over, and has not provided any quotation from scientific literature to back up his claim.