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.

[John Human]

[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

Perhaps we need a more nuanced description of "transitional forms." For example, there is no evidence (for example) of a proto-human with a half-formed locking knee joint. Reason dictates that the whole thing sprang into being full-formed, because the interlocking parts all need each other in order to function correctly.

More generally, the final sentence in the introduction to that wikipedia article states that "some fossil species are proposed to be directly ancestral to others, like how Australopithecus anamensis is most likely to be ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis."

Honest scientists use this type of language indicating an inescapable degree of doubt and ambiguity in the fossil record. The existence of a chronologically-ordered progression of species may suggest but not PROVE that one was the direct ancestor of another. Examples come to mind of where scientists hastily presumed but later abandoned the assertion of direct ancestry: Scientists now accept that archaeopteryx was NOT the ancestor of modern birds, for example; and that homo erectus (narrowly defined) was NOT the ancestor of modern humans.

In other words, sweeping assertions of fact, when discussing evolution, are all too often unscientific.

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Intervention

From what I can tell, DrNoGods never made that direct claim. If he has made that direct claim, please PM the post to me.

[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."

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Still small]

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.

‘Natural selection’ is a process of selecting variations within existing genetic information, whether mutation or epigenetic, which enables adaptation to environmental conditions (‘forcing functions’). Would not Punctuated Equilibrium, to enable rapid changes required, also require these so-called “forcing functions and their strength� to affect (increase) the ‘mutation rates’? If the mutation/s selected was/were already within the genome during the long periods of stasis, being beneficial, should there not be examples of these ‘new’ species already present well before the onset of the so-called ‘forcing functions and their strength’?

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

A fossil is nothing but a snapshot in time which shows that the specimen once existed. All else regarding its origins, evolutionary ancestry and descendants is pure speculation. It would be no different to studying the differences and similarities between Chihuahua from Mexico, a German Hunting Terrier from Germany, a Dingo from Australia and an Alaskan Malamute from Alaska in order to determine which descended from which. Each has adaptations to suit its own particular environment but they did not descend one from another through ‘forcing functions and their strength’. Though they are, in a sense, transitional (environmentally) they are concurrent species from the same family. It is only that we can see living specimens of each that we know that they’re all concurrent. It is only through speculation of dating ranges (from an a priori) and environmental variation that we assume that similarity and variation between supposed ‘transitionals’ is due to descendancy. For all we know, they may have existed in the same time period but different environmental locations. In other words, being transitional (environmentally) but concurrent species from the same family. A classic example of bias interpretation of such ‘evidence’ is that of tiktaalik, the supposed perfect example of the ‘missing link’ from fish to land dwelling animals. Even Richard Dawkins, in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, claims “Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer.�. Yet a trackway found in Poland, which has been shown to be by a tetrapod, was dated (using evolutionary assumptions) as been 397 million years old. This is 18 million years (using evolutionary assumptions) older than its supposed ‘transitional’ or ‘missing link’, tiktaalik. (link).

The long list of supposed transitionals or ‘missing links’ may very well be transitional (environmentally) but concurrent species from the same family. By the way, is Wikipedia accepted as one of those “peer-reviewed scientific journals� you often insist we (Creationists) cite?

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 271 by Still small]

If the mutation/s selected was/were already within the genome during the long periods of stasis, being beneficial, should there not be examples of these ‘new’ species already present well before the onset of the so-called ‘forcing functions and their strength’?

No. Why would there be without any environmental pressure? Look at the finch beak discussion from another thread (post 115 and surrounding in the Debate with a scientist thread). Longer beaks were already in the population (ie. the genes for those existed), in the wings of the distribution of beak lengths, but did not become dominant until a change in food source benefitted those with longer beaks. No new mutations were required in this case ... just "selection" of those with the longer beak mutation which then spread through the population as it was beneficial. Without the new food source requiring longer beaks to reach, there would have been no shift towards longer beaks. So without the forcing function (ie. the new food source) the longer beak selection would not have been made.

You're describing it as if a random beneficial mutation automatically spreads through the population regardless of the specific benefit, so that all representatives should exist in a population. The word "benefit" has to be considered in context. What might be a beneficial mutation in one environment may not be in another (eg. a longer beak would not be a benefit on the original island with the different food source, but it is on the new island). The forcing function is what drives the selection of a given beneficial mutation. If megalodon came back and could catch 90% of great white sharks for lunch, some mutation that allowed the great white to swim faster might suddenly become hugely beneficial when before it didn't really confer an advantage so would not spread through the population.

By the way, is Wikipedia accepted as one of those “peer-reviewed scientific journals� you often insist we (Creationists) cite?

I won't comment on the obvious knock against radiometric dating and "evolutionary assumptions", but I often link to Wikipedia articles because they are usually general discussions of a topic, with links at the bottom to either other more detailed Wikipedia articles, or to the original peer-reviewed science papers. Plus, many journals now require purchase of original articles for typically $30-40 per article which makes them practically unavailable to people who don't have access via their university or place of employment. I do have access to many of these journals without paying, but can't scan and post the articles as that can result in legal trouble (the journals don't like people giving away their copyrighted materials). So I'm not suggesting Wikipedia articles as a first source, but their bottom links often do have the original sources, although you may have to pay to read those papers.

I also defend the scientific consensus when a topic has reached the status of a formal scientific theory (not the layman "it's just a theory" meaning, but the formal meaning as a science term). That status means that many, many other people in the general scientific community have either done the research, or reviewed it, or contributed in some significant way and also that there is general agreement that the original hypotheses has been supported by observations, experiments and analysis. It is a rigorous process and only very rarely results in a theory being completely tossed out or revamped beyond recognition. ToE has reached that status, and the genetics work of the last 40-50 years has just confirmed the fossil record analysis and further cements ToE as a formal scientific theory. There's just too much evidence for it to claim it isn't valid in general. Specifics will always be tweaked as with any theory. Look at Darwin's little "tree of life" sketch in Origin of Species, and compare that to the latest versions that have to be blown up to wall size just to see all the detail.

[Goat]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I have shown time and time again how both evolution and big theory are both beliefs not based on observable data. That does not make testable predictions.

When theories based on Biblical ideas are based on actual falsifiable predictions that are not falsified.

Censor me then, if you cannot stand the heat.


Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model

https://www.icr.org/article/magnetic-fi ... -creation/

Well, I have seen a number of claims about 'not based on observable data', however, I know those claims to be false. And, both evolution and the inflationary theory of cosmology, Aka the big bang, have made, and do make testable predictions. So, that is also a false statement.

As for as the IRC's magnetic field data, it's been throughtly debunked.

http://www.skeptictank.org/files/icr/magnet01.htm

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 273 by Goat]

Well, I have seen a number of claims about 'not based on observable data', however, I know those claims to be false. And, both evolution and the inflationary theory of cosmology, Aka the big bang, have made, and do make testable predictions. So, that is also a false statement.

As for as the IRC's magnetic field data, it's been throughtly debunked.

http://www.skeptictank.org/files/icr/magnet01.htm

wrong theory try again.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 274 by EarthScienceguy]

wrong theory try again.

Wait a minute! You're not going to get away with that after defending this Humphreys' planetary magnetic field nonsense repeatedly on this website. The article Goat linked specifically references Humphreys' "paper" where he not only assumed a single exponential decay starting 6000 years ago (the subject of this particular debunking), but the other two known-to-be-false assumptions (ie. planets started as balls of H2O, and god magically aligned all the H atom nuclear spins). Try again.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Are you trying to say that the Earth's magnetic field is not decreasing?

Are you trying to say that the magnetic field in increasing?

A funny thing about the magnetic reversals that happen every few "Millions of years" or so.

If this were so we would "predict" that all of the rock a magnetic strip would have there magnetic fields pointing in the same direction. But that is not what we find.

In 1986, Humphrey's predicted that in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first and record the earth's magnetic field in one direction, while the inside would have cooled a short time later and have recorded the field in another direction.

Then in 1989, R.S Coe and M. Pre'vot found evidence of extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal.

So the article that Goat used actually confirmed Humphrey's prediction.

Unfortunately, the archaeomagnetic data do not support that assumption. Instead the data show that the field intensity at the earth's surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ (see figure 1). A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began slowly accelerated decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly s fast as it is today.

Like I said try again.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 276 by EarthScienceguy]

Are you trying to say that the Earth's magnetic field is not decreasing?

Are you trying to say that the magnetic field in increasing?

I made no such statements. And you continue to defend Humphreys' nonsense. Justify the following Humphreys' assumptions:

1) The Earth is 6000 years old.

2) The Earth's magnetic field strength decays as a single exponential.

3) The Earth started out as a ball of H2O.

4) God aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the initial starting field.

Until you can do that ... all 4 of them ... you have no case. I would add "try again", but you've yet to justify any of these initial assumptions, or even try once. Just one of these assumptions being false would negate anything he may come up with, but the fact that all 4 of them are demonstrably false completely destroys his "theory." Yet you continue to try and defend it as legitimate.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 272 by DrNoGods]

ToE has reached that status, and the genetics work of the last 40-50 years has just confirmed the fossil record analysis and further cements ToE as a formal scientific theory. There's just too much evidence for it to claim it isn't valid in general. Specifics will always be tweaked as with any theory. Look at Darwin's little "tree of life" sketch in Origin of Species, and compare that to the latest versions that have to be blown up to wall size just to see all the detail.

1. There is no evidence that duplication and mutation actually happens in a way to change the information in dna in a usable form. There is plenty of evidence that it increases the genetic load but not in any usable form.
2. Punctuated equilibrium is said to happen in thousand of years when there is no evidence in the fossil record of any transitional forms.

Punctuated equilibrium is not a small tweak. It is a major shift in thought from slow gradual change. These are supposed to be RANDOM changes in the DNA. There is no evidence indicating that a in pressures increases the mutation rate. There is no evidence that a change in pressures increases usable mutations. (meaning mutations that are not neutral or deleterious) For punctuated equilibrium to be reality would mean that chance was directional. Chance was a force that was pushing mutation in a particular direction. Which is outside the definition of chance. This view of chance is an illogical position. It is illogical to assume that CHANCE is going to work in a particular direction.

It is more rational for someone to believe that the universe itself is alive and directing life than it is for someone to believe that chance is some sort of driving force of change.

Believe what you want. It really does not matter. At this point creationist theories are far superior at predicting natural phenomenon than naturalist origin theories.

So hang on to your precious TOE all you want. It doesn't make any accurate prediction. Except for those that are aligned to creationist theories.