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 247 by EarthScienceguy]

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.

I'm afraid your credibility at discussing anything related to evolution, and the physical sciences in general, has been completely shot via continued statements like this one, referencing creationist websites for nearly all of your supporting references, and defense of crackpot "theories" like Russell Humphreys' planetary magnetic field nonsense. None of this is actual science.

The huge majority of the (real) scientific community accept ToE as a valid theory for the very reason that it has been confirmed via observations and many experimental results over more than a century now. Extensive genetics work over the last 40-50 years has only confirmed ToE, and it continues to be refined as new observations and experimental data become available (like all scientific theories). It hasn't been discarded because there is no alternative theory that works better, but that is how actual science works may be a foreign concept to your way of thinking.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 248 by John Human]

... and has not provided any quotation from scientific literature to back up his claim.

How many links have I posted in this thread specifically in response to your asking for scientific evidence that the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and backed up by extensive observations and experimental evidence? Have you not read any of the replies or looked at any of the links? Maybe you could find a friend to show you how links work if you are not familiar with that.. All you have to do is click on them with your mouse and you are taken to the website referenced in the link.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 247 by EarthScienceguy]

Evolution has been falsified many times.

Nothing in your post remotely falsifies the theory of evolution. You need to supply evidence that clearly and directly contradicts any prediction based on the theory. Simply not having observed something yet does not eliminate it as a possibility.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 248 by John Human]

... and has not provided any quotation from scientific literature to back up his claim.

How many links have I posted in this thread specifically in response to your asking for scientific evidence that the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and backed up by extensive observations and experimental evidence?

Exactly zero. I have asked you to back up your groundless claim that IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that humans evolved from (Species X) BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION.

But you repeatedly ignore this, with misleading general statements about the so-called "theory" (not a scientific theory in the strict sense) of evolution. "Evolution" is not the point. The point is whether there is PROOF (as you claimed) of speciation of humans (or of any other emerging species, for that matter) by means of natural selection. Please provide a quotation from a relevant source, not a misleading link to a source that doesn't really say what you claim.

I'll say it again, because you seem to be dodging this point: The issue is the cause or mechanism of speciation (the emergence of distinct species that can't mate with parent species and produce fertile offspring).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 252 by John Human]

First, your original request was for just one example of a species that had arisen via evolution by natural selection. I provided the example of Homo sapien, and you've now reworded that response (without any input from me) that I have claimed this is PROVEN. I do claim this has been demonstrated, conclusively, via the evidence for ToE by natural selection. But don't reword my comments to suit your argument.

In the real science world when something reaches the status of theory it is as close to "fact", or "proven" that it gets. So my claim all along has been that ToE is a formal scientific theory (and it is, despite your claim to the contrary) and therefore EVERY living thing on earth today evolved from a prior form via ToE by natural selection, including Homo sapiens. That is the basis of ToE. So your whining is indeed all about whether or not ToE is a formal scientific theory (ie. demonstrated to be correct), not about your reworded version of my example of a species that evolved via this mechanism.

If you click on the links below they will take you to other websites where you can read the contents. They might help with your misunderstanding of the word theory in science, and that ToE is, in fact, a formal scientific theory:

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

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

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

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what- ... heory.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-words/

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/10033

https://evolution-institute.org/evoluti ... s-gravity/

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb]

Nothing in your post remotely falsifies the theory of evolution. You need to supply evidence that clearly and directly contradicts any prediction based on the theory. Simply not having observed something yet does not eliminate it as a possibility.

Spoken like a true naturalist. Hear no evidence, See no evidence and make sure you say there is no evidence.

Evolution predicts: That organisms will become better adapted to their environment by random mutations over generations. This was not observed in either the fruit fly experiments or e-coli. Both follow mendel's laws. Which evolution would have to violate to be true.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 251 by brunumb]

Nothing in your post remotely falsifies the theory of evolution. You need to supply evidence that clearly and directly contradicts any prediction based on the theory. Simply not having observed something yet does not eliminate it as a possibility.

Darwin predicted a slow gradual change over long periods of time. This was falsified long ago because of a lack of transitional form were found. So what is seen in the fossil record is what creationist predict no what evolution predicts.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 255 by EarthScienceguy]

This was falsified long ago because of a lack of transitional form were found.

More nonsense. Refute the items on this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

More nonsense. Refute the items on this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

Again are you serious. Have you never heard of "Punctuated equilibrium"? Why was punctuated equilibrium developed, because of missing transitional forms. This is not even creationist saying this but evolutionary "Experts" themselves.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 257 by EarthScienceguy]

Have you never heard of "Punctuated equilibrium"?

Sure ... it is one of many refinements to ToE, and is part of modern ToE. So if you accept punctiated equilibrium, then you accept ToE. ToE has not remained static since Origin of Species was published in 1859! From the start of a Wikipedia article on PE (underline mine):

"Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history.[1] This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[2]"

But there ARE many transitional fossils ... as in the link I sent earlier. You're still not making any sense.