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 297 by DrNoGods]

No need wasting time on that. This dead horse has been beaten enough already. You capitulated with the comments I quoted in post 294 from your post 292 (before you edited it ... twice). Humphreys' assumptions cannot be justified from a (real) scientific perspective, and/or are demonstrably false.

Expect for that pesti little fact that his theories accurately predict things that no naturalist theories can.

Oh you will keep hearing this.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 298 by EarthScienceguy]

Expect for that pesti little fact that his theories accurately predict things that no naturalist theories can.

Only in your mind. But you've proven that you don't understand how science actually works if you think (as you obviously do) that any set of assumptions, whether realistic or not, which can produce, by pure coincidence, any agreement with any quantity, are valid assumptions leading to a valid theory. This is the opposite of how science works, yet you continue to defend that approach as if it were legitimate. It can only be due to a complete misunderstanding of how the scientific method works (but it does conform with "garbage in, garbage out").

Pesti:

Adjective:

pesti (not comparable)
1.Of, from, or relating to the city of Pest.

Noun:

pesti (plural pestiek)
1.Someone from the city of Pest.

[Still small]

The section of text you quoted was not discussing transitional forms (of which there are many examples), but rather how a minor trait can become dominant in a population without the need for any new mutations due to a change in environment.

True but the passage of mine to which your passage was responding was about transitional forms. It was you that changed the focus of the argument (subject).

Many transitional fossils have been found and documented, and examples of rapid evolutionary change are plentiful. ToE is not just gradual change, or punctuated equilibrium ... both occur. The rate that change occurs depends on the driving force and its strength, the reproduction rate, etc.

But only if the mutational information is already present. These driving forces can only act on or select from existing information. Regardless of how strong the driving forces may be, it cannot produce the information. Affect its dominance, yes but cannot produce it nor increase its rate of production (mutation).

Mutations can occur at the same rate in both cases, and as in the earlier example there may be no need for any new mutations. If an antibiotic wipes out 99.99% of a population of bacteria but 0.01% survives, the mutations already existing in that 0.01% making them resistant would suddenly become dominant in the population as long as this antibiotic were present. Given the reproduction rate of bacteria, a new population could come to dominate in just a few days. This population could then undergo the same process against a new antibiotic and after a few cycles of this the resulting population of bacteria is very different from the original population.

The fact remains, though, that it is still bacteria and usually with a loss of some previously existing information.

Another point is that fossilization is rare. The fossil record is hugely incomplete and analysis of fossils is a puzzle of trying to fit everything together that has been observed.

The rarity or incompleteness of the fossils or the fossil record would depend upon a starting assumption that ToE is fact. Much the same as the trying to fit everything together is done according to the assumption of ToE being fact. A classic example of circular reasoning.

If every fossil of every organism that ever lived was available then you could argue about not having an example every transitional form (although creationists seem to refuse to admit that there are any, despite the evidence). I've found estimates all over the map for the fraction of animals leaving fossil records of any kind, such as this paper:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /ele.12589

and many comments similar to this one by Shibajyoti Das (PhD student at the Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University)

"Fossilization is a rare phenomenon. Scientists speculate that the number of extinct animal species is about 100,000,000 and only 100,000 have been discovered and identified. That means only 0.001% animal species that ever lived have been discovered. Remember that each species would have had millions and millions of individuals."
But whatever the actual numbers are, fossilization is a rare event and you would not expect the fossil record to fully represent ever creature that ever lived. (Emphasis added)

The speculation is based on the assumption of ToE being fact. Again, circular reasoning. All that you could possibly assert as fact is that only 100,000 animal species are known.

It is very much a situation of a preponderance of the evidence, but there is enough evidence to show that ToE is correct in general, and the reason it is accepted by the huge majority of scientists worldwide. And the genetics work of the last 40-50 years is consistent with it as well. (Emphasis added)

The huge majority of scientists worldwide couldnt give two hoots about the fact or fallacy of ToE as it has nothing to do with their particular fields of expertise and research. Of those that may give two hoots, it is probably due to the oft made claim that the huge majority of scientists . . . , without actual research into the subject. An example of a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority) which many use without or to avoid providing supportive evidence of the claim.

When they do reference legitimate science papers that's fine. But when they start with a "Statement of Faith" specifically discarding any science that contradicts the biblical narrative, they lose any legitimacy immediately. That is the exact opposite of how science is done.

Then I trust that you read the articles first, checking the references before disregarding them because of a Statement of Faith which differs from yours.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

Do you actually defend this Humphrey's "paper" as ESG does? If you do then it means you believe his first two claims that the Earth started out as a ball of pure H2O, and that god came along and aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the starting magnetic field (I'll ignore his other assumptions of a 6000 year old earth and a single exponential decay ... no need to throw those in given the first two).

Firstly, my comments were in relation to the academic skills or the lack thereof, of the skeptictank.org articless author, Steve Price. As for Dr Humphreys, he has done much research in his more than 20 years at Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, I think we need to admit that he may know more than me on the subject. Also, even just his secular science publications and awards include -

* Recently measured helium diffusion rate for zircon suggests inconsistency with U-Pb age for Awards Fenton Hill granodiorite (lead author is Humphreys), Eos, Transactions of the American and Geophysical Union 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract V32C-1047 (December 2003). Poster at .
* The enigma of the ubiquity of 14C in organic samples older than 100 ka (lead author is J. R. Baumgardner), Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract V32C-1045 (December 2003). Poster at .
* U.S. Patent No. 6,350,015 (26 Feb 2002) Magnetic drive systems and methods for a micromachined fluid ejector.
* Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence 1995.
* Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II thermal source experiments, Review of Scientific Instruments 63(10), October 1992.
* Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory, 1990.
* Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams, 13th Internat. Conf. on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington, D.C. 1"6, October 1990.
* Reducing aspect ratios in inertial confinement fusion targets, JOWOG 37 Conference, Albuquerque, NM, January 1990. (Contents classified).
* U.S. Patent No. 4,808,368 (28 Feb. 1989) High voltage supply for neutron tubes in well-logging applications.
* Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Contribution Award, for Rimfire laser-triggered gas-insulated switch, 1988.
* Progress toward a superconducting opening switch, Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 1987, pp. 279"282.
* Scaling relations for the Rimfire multi-stage gas switch, Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, VA, 29 June " 1 August 1987.
* Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award to PBFA-II project, 1986.
* Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA-II, Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 10"12 June 1985, pp. 262"269.
* PBFA II, a 100 TW pulsed power driver for the inertial confinement fusion program, Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 10"12 June 1985.
* Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons, International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34:261"268, 1983.
* Scientific creationism, Physics Today 35:84"86, June 1982.
* Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, NS"28 (1981) 1691"1695.
* Pulsed neutron gamma ray logging for minerals associated with uranium, 6th Conf. on Small Accelerators in Research and Industry, Denton, TX, November 3"5, 1980. Sandia National Laboratories document no. SAND80-1531.
* Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award for lightning waveform recorder (to D. R. Humphreys and two others), 1978.
* U.S. Patent No. 4,054,835 (18 Oct. 1977) Rapid-response electric field sensor.
* Wide-range multi-channel analog switch, Nuclear Instruments and Methods 121:505"508, 1974.
* The 1/ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials, Nuclear Physics A182 (1972) 580.
* Studies of hadron interactions at energies around 10 TeV using an ionization spectrometer"emulsion chamber combination, Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Cosmic Rays, Budapest 1969, in Acta Physica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 29 (1970) 497"503.
* Wide-range multi-input pulse height recording system, Review of Scientific Instruments 38 (1967) 1123"1127.

Now, I have absolutely no idea of the academic qualifications of Skeptictank.orgs Steve Price (nor could I find any) but just from his attempt at rebuttal, he appears to be way out of his depth in this matter. At this point, Ill go with Dr Humphreys.

Do you accept Humphreys' first two assumptions in that "paper"? Do you think that is science? Do you believe that just because he coincidentally arrived at some numbers close to correct values from these initial assumptions that this validates his "theory" (ie. the end justifies the means, regardless of the means)?

Ill address your third point first. Yes, as his theorys predictions are extremely close, it has greater validity than other theories that have, so far, failed to explain these magnetic field strengths. Much closer than any secular theory. Just because your atheistic bias doesnt like the success of his theory, this doesnt justify your claim that his predictions are coincidental. They are no more coincidental than any other accurate predictions in any other scientific theory.

As to your first point, yes, I see no problem as they appear to answer the questions (as shown by the accurate predictions). And to the second point, yes, I do think that it is science. Lets have a look at the process.

1. A claim has been made. The claim being that the Earth was initially in the form of water. Now, to the researcher, it makes no difference who it was that made the claim. It is purely a matter of whether the claim is feasible and fits the available evidence. Could all the molecules of the Earth have started as H²O? Well, at first glance, there is a lot of it around, not only covering approx. 70% of the surface but huge reservoirs under the surface though it origin is still somewhat of a mystery to secular scientists. Also, there appears to be an abundance of water within the terrestrial rocks and extraterrestrial rocks (link). All matter is made up of the same constituents as water, being protons, neutrons and electrons. Therefore, is it possible (thats possible, not probable)? Well, yes it is possible.

2. If a body is made of water, is it able to produce a magnetic field such as that experienced on Earth (and other bodies)? When one looks at the Humphreys paper, The Creation Of Planetary Magnetic Fields, one can see that the Physics adds up to form a magnetic field. Remembering that the atomic spin only has to be aligned at the point of creation, no longer - Immediately after their creation, the atoms would begin to collide due to normal thermal motions. Within seconds these collisions would knock the nuclei out of their original alignment into a more random order. But the ordinary laws of electricity and magnetism would maintain the magnetic field by starting up a large electric current - billions of amperes - in the Earth's conductive interior. Therefore, is it possible (again, thats possible, not probable)? Well, yes it is possible. The Physics adds up.

The only thing which cannot be tested or studied scientifically is the cause of such a creation, as it is beyond the field of scientific study, the natural. But this is true for both the Creationists and secularists theories. Though one can always speculate. If Humphreys theory (being an explanation) were correct, using current knowledge of physics, what does it predict for the strengths of the various magnetic fields? How accurate are the predictions? And can it explain the existence of planetary magnetic fields?

Other than the initial claim made by another, Humphreys has applied current physics to the claim and it appears to work, therefore, it is possible.

(As for a 6000 year old earth and a single exponential decay, yes, I believe between 6000 and 10000 years has past on Earth. Though, as Einsteins GTR shows, this may be different elsewhere in the universe. Regarding decay, as an example, Humphreys refers to a paper (The solar cycle. Physics Today, 35(4):25-34. Newkirk, G., and K. Frazier. 1982.) that indicates the Suns regular 11 year reversal does not change the exponential decay.)

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 300 by Still small]

But only if the mutational information is already present. These driving forces can only act on or select from existing information. Regardless of how strong the driving forces may be, it cannot produce the information. Affect its dominance, yes but cannot produce it nor increase its rate of production (mutation).

A mutation IS new information. If just one base pair changes in a section of a protein-encoding gene it alters the sequence of amino acids in the protein, and therefore makes a new protein. This is "new" information, even though obviously the base pair change involved existing A, G, C or T bases. But even without this, natural selection operating against existing traits at the far wings of the distribution (provided some external event causes that trait to be advantageous ... such as resistance to an antibiotic) can create a modified population compared to the original. So called "macro" evolution is nothing but enough of these events to cause enough change that speciation occurs. I don't understand why anti-evolutionists have a problem with this. Many small, incremental changes can result in a different organism, even working with existing material. Mutations may allow this to occur faster, but mutations are new information in many cases.

The fact remains, though, that it is still bacteria and usually with a loss of some previously existing information.

Until it isn't a bacterium. Enough small changes over enough time can produce speciation and more drastic changes. This is what is observed in nature.

The rarity or incompleteness of the fossils or the fossil record would depend upon a starting assumption that ToE is fact. Much the same as the trying to fit everything together is done according to the assumption of ToE being fact. A classic example of circular reasoning.

This is hardly an argument given that ToE has been demonstrated to be a fact, repeatedly. But taking the bait ... are you trying to say that the entire body of the fossil record is not sufficient to claim that it is incomplete? It isn't circular reasoning when the evidence clearly shows something. Just look at the fossil record for genus Homo. This is a perfect example of many branches dating back millions of years with some more complete than others, suggesting intermediaries that have yet to be found. The Homo naledi find in 2013 is a good example of a new find that filled in some gaps. But it is clear that there are many other gaps in the Homo line (ie. an incomplete fossil record).

Then I trust that you read the articles first, checking the references before disregarding them because of a Statement of Faith which differs from yours.

I have ... such as the meteorite dating series from Answers in Genesis that I've posted here several times before. They do a thorough job of summarizing the many dozens of measurements over the decades, using different isotope combinations, and noting the absolutely remarkable consistency. Then at the end they say that although this record is impressive and hard to argue with, there must be some unknown explanation for the "errors" because scripture clearly shows that the universe is only 6,000 years old so the measurements must be wrong (because it voilates scripture). They postulate some imaginary materials change by god, and say that more work is needed to find the source of the measurement errors. Perfect example of why any site or publication with a "statement of faith" can be disregarded as far as scientific research is concerned. They start with a set of conditions (scripture is "true") and anything that doesn't agree with that is, by definition, wrong. That isn't science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 301 by Still small]

Yes, as his theorys predictions are extremely close, it has greater validity than other theories that have, so far, failed to explain these magnetic field strengths. Much closer than any secular theory. Just because your atheistic bias doesnt like the success of his theory, this doesnt justify your claim that his predictions are coincidental. They are no more coincidental than any other accurate predictions in any other scientific theory.

OK ... that speaks for itself, especially the last line which I underlined. Amazing. Run through his numbers for the magnetic field of Venus and tell me how close that is to reality. It is not a "successful" theory of planetary magnetic fields because his assumptions are demonstrably wrong. But you clearly don't see the difference between this, and actual, real science.

Other than the initial claim made by another, Humphreys has applied current physics to the claim and it appears to work, therefore, it is possible.

No he didn't apply current physics to the claim. He made three ridiculous and demonstrably wrong claims (Earth stated out as a ball of H2O, god came along and aligned all the H atom nuclear spins (really?), and the Earth is 6000 years old) and applied an arbitrary single exponential decay of the field, then adjusted his k factor to match known values for the Earth, and he called it a "theory." Of course this rubbish was not published in any legitimate science journal because it would have gone straight into the trash can due to his three bogus and unjustified assumptions. It really is incredible that anyone could buy into such utter nonsense, and fortunately no one in the world of real science does.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

OK ... that speaks for itself, especially the last line which I underlined. Amazing. Run through his numbers for the magnetic field of Venus and tell me how close that is to reality. It is not a "successful" theory of planetary magnetic fields because his assumptions are demonstrably wrong. But you clearly don't see the difference between this, and actual, real science.

Did you even look at the equations?

His equations are dependent on core size and core conductivity. Humphrey's used value of theorized core samples and planet composition. There is very little known about Venus because of the dense and severe atmosphere. Now what his theory does do now is make predictions about the planet composition.

It is theorized that Venus has an iron core the size of the Earth because of its density. Venus right now has everyone guessing what might be the composition. because if it has a core the size of Earth then it should have a much stronger magnetic field. And yet if it has a core the size of Mars then it should not be as dense as it is. Until we know what the interior of Venus is made of Venus is irrelevant to the conversation.


Quote:
Other than the initial claim made by another, Humphreys has applied current physics to the claim and it appears to work, therefore, it is possible.

No he didn't apply current physics to the claim. He made three ridiculous and demonstrably wrong claims (Earth stated out as a ball of H2O, god came along and aligned all the H atom nuclear spins (really?),

You cannot falsify this claim just by saying it did not happen. You were not there no one was. Just like there are on transitional fossils before the cambrian explosion. And you say they were there they were not preserved though (really?) prove it.

and the Earth is 6000 years old) and applied an arbitrary single exponential decay of the field, then adjusted his k factor to match known values for the Earth, and he called it a "theory."

K can be .25, .5, .75, or 1. How can those multiplier change a number by orders of magnitude. Trying to spit into the wind.

Of course this rubbish was not published in any legitimate science journal because it would have gone straight into the trash can due to his three bogus and unjustified assumptions. It really is incredible that anyone could buy into such utter nonsense, and fortunately no one in the world of real science does.

Creation Science in the field of origins is way out in front of anything naturalist have. Besides this is a non issue anyway. Look on line people critique creationist theories all the time. Cosmologist know what we publish.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 304 by EarthScienceguy]

Now what his theory does do now is make predictions about the planet composition.

You apparently did not read yourself the very nonsense you are trying to defend. One of his initial assumptions that I've complained about every time is his assumption that the planets started out as balls of H2O. That is a direct statement about composition. At least read the article yourself.

You cannot falsify this claim just by saying it did not happen. You were not there no one was.

Seriously? Are you actually claiming that unless a human being was there to witness something it cannot be falsified? If you understood even at the high school level the basics of how science works you'd understand that it is Humphreys' who has to justify his claims that the planets started as balls of H2O (we know that is false because of what planet Earth is today) and that a god being aligned all the H atom nuclear spins to create the starting field (no gods have ever been shown to exist). The whole "theory" is pure nonsense and not even remotely related to actual science. You're claiming a god being created the universe about 6000 years ago. Were you there? Since you weren't I take it we can ignore your claims for the same reason?

Cosmologist know what we publish.

You don't "publish" anything in legitimate science journals because because it isn't science and they would not pollute their journals with such ridiculous nonsense. This is exactly why creationists have to peddle their garbage on their own websites and publications.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

You apparently did not read yourself the very nonsense you are trying to defend. One of his initial assumptions that I've complained about every time is his assumption that the planets started out as balls of H2O. That is a direct statement about composition. At least read the article yourself.

I know what Humphreys is asserting. I have said this before that week one was a special time in the history of the universe. It was a time when God added energy into the universe. And directed the flow of matter and energy into the raw material that He made the Earth and the rest of the stars and planets.

My guess would be that He used natural processes but that is not necessarily the case during the first week of creation.

What of it?

Do not act like naturalistic theories of solar development do not need special energies in a directed way.

Example.

1. How did stars, especially the first generation stars over come Charles law?

Although virtually all secular astronomers believe that stars form spontaneously, the physics behind this alleged process is riddled with difficulties. According to the standard model of star formation, stars form from a collapsing nebula. However, when gas is compressed, it heats up.4 This higher temperature creates extra pressure which resists further compression. The collapse would have a tendency to stop before the star ever formed. Furthermore, a collapsing cloud would spin faster as it collapsed.5 This is much the same way a skater spins up as she pulls her arms in. As the cloud spins faster, it becomes increasingly difficult to pull material in further: much as weights held at arms length are difficult to pull closer when one is spinning. Even if the star were able to form by pulling in the material, it would be spinning extremely rapidly. A small percentage of stars do spin rapidly,6 but most do not. The sun takes about 25 days to rotate once at its equator.7

2. There is also a problem with magnetic fields.
The intrinsic (weak) magnetic field of the collapsing nebula would become intensified as the cloud collapsed; the process concentrates the magnetic field. The magnetic field would then resist being compressed further"much like trying to push two magnets together when their like poles are facing each other. Gas pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields all work against the possibility of a condensing star.

3. There are no population III stars. And how would population III stars ignite without a super nova to crush the gas cloud, and water to cool the cloud.

Star formation is a myth.

Here is even a paper from Harvard describing some of the problems with stellar evolution.

Unless you want to say that nature breaks its own laws again there is no way for stars to form.

Naturalist theories cannot form planet either.

. Here we review our state of understanding
of five fundamental bottlenecks in planet formation. These are: 1) the structure and
evolution of protoplanetary disks; 2) the growth of the first planetesimals; 3) orbital
migration driven by interactions between proto-planets and gaseous disk; 4) the origin
of the Solar Systems orbital architecture; and 5) the relationship between observed
super-Earths and our own terrestrial planets. Given our lack of understanding of these
issues, even the most successful formation models remain on shaky ground.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07202.pdf

Planet formation by naturalistic theory is a myth.


Quote:
You cannot falsify this claim just by saying it did not happen. You were not there no one was.

Seriously? Are you actually claiming that unless a human being was there to witness something it cannot be falsified? If you understood even at the high school level the basics of how science works you'd understand that it is Humphreys' who has to justify his claims that the planets started as balls of H2O (we know that is false because of what planet Earth is today) and that a god being aligned all the H atom nuclear spins to create the starting field (no gods have ever been shown to exist). The whole "theory" is pure nonsense and not even remotely related to actual science. You're claiming a god being created the universe about 6000 years ago. Were you there? Since you weren't I take it we can ignore your claims for the same reason?

Naturalist do not even have a workable alternative theory!!!! So yes I can say this.

Quote:
Cosmologist know what we publish.


You don't "publish" anything in legitimate science journals because because it isn't science and they would not pollute their journals with such ridiculous nonsense. This is exactly why creationists have to peddle their garbage on their own websites and publications.

Again why would we.

The only time breakthroughs are made are when the align themselves it creation theory.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 306 by EarthScienceguy]

However, when gas is compressed, it heats up.4 This higher temperature creates extra pressure which resists further compression. The collapse would have a tendency to stop before the star ever formed.

Stars are incredibly hot and producing enormous amounts of energy in their cores, so what is preventing them from flying apart explosively now?