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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 258 by DrNoGods]

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

If there are then why Punctuated equilibrium? Why abrupt changes in thousand of years instead of millions?

You gave me a definition of what Punctuated equilibrium is not why it was developed.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 259 by EarthScienceguy]

If there are then why Punctuated equilibrium? Why abrupt changes in thousand of years instead of millions?

Evolution 101. The rate at which changes happen has a dependence on the forcing function (ie. the "pressure" causing the change to be selected by natural selection). Great white sharks haven't changed much in millions of years because they are at the top of their food chain and not threatened, so there is little force requiring them to change. A drastic environmental change such as loss of a food source or a big climate change, or a new predator arriving on the scene, would require much faster change in order to adapt, or die (eg. if adaption doesn't happen fast enough, like with the dinosaurs). So a strong forcing function can result in rapid change, while a weak forcing function can result in slow (or no) changes over long periods of time.

But the fossil record shows that both slow, gradual change (phyletic gradualism) and punctuated equilibrium happen ... it isn't just one or the other.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Evolution 101. The rate at which changes happen has a dependence on the forcing function (ie. the "pressure" causing the change to be selected by natural selection). Great white sharks haven't changed much in millions of years because they are at the top of their food chain and not threatened, so there is little force requiring them to change. A drastic environmental change such as loss of a food source or a big climate change, or a new predator arriving on the scene, would require much faster change in order to adapt, or die (eg. if adaption doesn't happen fast enough, like with the dinosaurs). So a strong forcing function can result in rapid change, while a weak forcing function can result in slow (or no) changes over long periods of time.

Again I did not ask for an explanation of it. I know the theory. Why the change from gradualism? There had to be a reason why there was a change from gradualism.

But the fossil record shows that both slow, gradual change (phyletic gradualism) and punctuated equilibrium happen ... it isn't just one or the other.

But that is not what Gould says

Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

From talk Origins

The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.

Abrupt appearances would mean lack of transitional forms found.
large difference between ancestral and daughter species would also mean lack of transitional forms.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 261 by EarthScienceguy]

Why the change from gradualism? There had to be a reason why there was a change from gradualism.

There was no "change from gradualism." Slow change, rapid change, and everything in between happens now as it did in the past. When you consider the forcing functions (eg. climatic change, food source change, predator change, etc.) it is obvious that change depends on not just random mutations or other DNA changes, sexual selection, etc., but the forcing functions and their strength as well. Natural selection works on all of these based on the adaptations needed to survive. "Superbugs" wouldn't develop at nearly the speed that they do if none of our antibiotics were effective as a forcing function requiring adaptation of the bacteria to survive.

Abrupt appearances would mean lack of transitional forms found.
large difference between ancestral and daughter species would also mean lack of transitional forms.

But there ARE transitional forms ... many of them (see Wikipedia link sent earlier). It isn't just gradualism, OR abrupt change ... they both exist.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 261 by EarthScienceguy]

But the fossil record shows that both slow, gradual change (phyletic gradualism) and punctuated equilibrium happen ... it isn't just one or the other.

Let me clarify what we are speaking of here.

Creationist do not have a problem with Mendel's laws of genetics. And that is what we see in the fossil record. A wolf becoming a chiwawa.

What creationist do agree with is when Mendel's laws of genetics are violated. Like for example in whale evolution. Mendel's laws of genetics are violated when a land animal changes in to a water/land animal and then into a water dwelling swimming mammal.

The information is simply not in the genes.

Hey take a dog and try changing it into a whale and see if it works. Try to see if you can get it to be some sort of water dwelling

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 262 by DrNoGods]

There was no "change from gradualism." Slow change, rapid change, and everything in between happens now as it did in the past. When you consider the forcing functions (eg. climatic change, food source change, predator change, etc.) it is obvious that change depends on not just random mutations or other DNA changes, sexual selection, etc., but the forcing functions and their strength as well. Natural selection works on all of these based on the adaptations needed to survive. "Superbugs" wouldn't develop at nearly the speed that they do if none of our antibiotics were effective as a forcing function requiring adaptation of the bacteria to survive.

Quote:
Abrupt appearances would mean lack of transitional forms found.
large difference between ancestral and daughter species would also mean lack of transitional forms.


But there ARE transitional forms ... many of them (see Wikipedia link sent earlier). It isn't just gradualism, OR abrupt change ... they both exist.

None of this answers the question. WHY did evolutionary theory have to change and include punctuated equilibrium?

[brunumb]

[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.

Spoken like a true denialist. Nothing you have said falsifies evolution. Perhaps you need to check what the process of falsification actually entails.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 264 by EarthScienceguy]

None of this answers the question. WHY did evolutionary theory have to change and include punctuated equilibrium?

Because OBSERVATIONS suggested that a refinement was needed. I think your problem is that you aren't familiar with real, actual science and think it works like creation "science." But unlike the fake pseudoscience practiced by creationists, real science adjusts for new observations and new input data. Evolution is not defined entirely by Darwin's book of 1859 ... it has been refined like any real science theory as new data become available. That is how real science has always worked. So there's no reason to ask "why did evolution change" ... it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about actual science and how it works. This, obviously, excludes most creationists.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

it has been refined like any real science theory as new data become available. That is how real science has always worked. So there's no reason to ask "why did evolution change" ... it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about actual science and how it works. This, obviously, excludes most creationists.

When a theory changes it has a reason why. What is the reason why evolution changed changed from gradualism to punctuated equilibrium? It is a simple question that has a simple answer.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 267 by EarthScienceguy]

What is the reason why evolution changed changed from gradualism to punctuated equilibrium? It is a simple question that has a simple answer.

Which has already been answered ... it didn't. Both gradual change happens, and rapid change followed by stasis. It isn't one or the other. But this reality doesn't fit your flood story does it?