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 brunumb]

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

The problem is getting stars to the collapse enough for gravity to hold them together.

That is why naturalist theories have to some type of energetic event happen near where the star is forming to collapse the disc of gas for the star to ignite and not fly apart.

This is what makes population III stars (1st generation stars) not possible, because there is no energetic event to collapse the gas cloud. And we have yet to observe any population III stars.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb]

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

The problem is getting stars to the collapse enough for gravity to hold them together.

That does not address my question.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 308 by EarthScienceguy]

The problem is getting stars to the collapse enough for gravity to hold them together.

The whole thing is driven by gravity. Gravity is what causes the gas cloud to condense and accumulate matter. As the amount of matter increases, so does the gravity.

As the matter loses potential energy it is converted to kinetic energy and the mass increases in temperature. When the mass is large enough and the temperature at the core is high enough, kinetic energy allows the nuclei to overcome electrostatic repulsion and get close enough for the nuclear force to kick in. Nuclear fusion begins and the star is born. No God-magic necessary.

[Still small]

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. (Emphasis added)

Yes, mutations are new information, I agree. But these mutations occur at a particular rate per generation per species. As Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) requires rapid morphological change over a relatively short period, this would require a dramatic increase in the mutation rate, as major changes usually require more than a single mutation. If PE is correct, what ‘force’ causes the rapid increase in the mutation rate?
If the major changes in a particular species are due to a slow accumulation of mutations, as per the mutation rate, then a new variety of the species will gradually arise. If due to ‘driving forces’, only these new variety of species survive, then this new species will continue on. But to enable these ‘driving forces’ to select this new variety, they must already exist within the general population which then should also be present within the fossil record but they are not.

Either way, there must be an explanation for the cause of a rapid increase in the mutation rate OR for a lack of fossil evidence for the slow morphing of one concurrent variety to another. Can you provide an explanation for either?

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.

I have no problem accepting and understanding variation within species due to genetic changes but can you provide actual observed or observable evidence of these changes going beyond the Family taxonomy level? For example, I can see the variation between dog breeds within the Canis genus. I can see the variation between various genus within the Canidae family, i.e. canis (dogs & wolves) & vulpes (foxes). But there is no observable or demonstrated evidence of any change beyond the Canidae family level. Can you provide any such observable or demonstrated evidence to the contrary?

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.

Just what, exactly, has been “observed in nature�? Speciation? Speciation is variation within the Family (or ‘kind’ in Baraminology). It is still bacteria and, from all observations, will always be bacteria. If you are contending that the bacteria will eventual change into another Family order, on what observations do you base this? Remember, part of the scientific method is ‘observation’. Speculation is not science, it belongs to the realm of ‘don’t know, hope so’.

This is hardly an argument given that ToE has been demonstrated to be a fact, repeatedly.

While I agree that evolution (small ‘e’), being a change in population over time, has been demonstrated to be fact, it is a far cry from ToE (Evolution, big ‘E’) being demonstrated as such. Can you provide scientific evidence or papers that describes an observed demonstration of an organism changing beyond the Family taxonomy level to different Family level?

At this point, just so we are clear, let me include some definitions.

ob•serve (əbˈzɜrv)
v. -served, -serv•ing. v.t.
1. to see, watch, or notice.
2. to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something.
3. to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse.
n.
1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2. an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.
3. the faculty or habit of observing or noticing.
4. notice: to escape observation.
5. an act or instance of watching or noting something for a scientific or other special purpose.
6. the information or record secured by such an act.
7. something learned in the course of observing things.
[1350–1400; Middle English < Latin]
ob`ser•va′tion•al, adj.
ob`ser•va′tion•al•ly, adv.
- (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.)

- demonstrate
dem·on·strate  (dĕm′ən-str�t′)
v. dem·on·strat·ed, dem·on·strat·ing, dem·on·strates
‪v.tr.‬
‪1. To show clearly and deliberately; manifest: demonstrated her skill as a gymnast; demonstrate affection by hugging.‬
‪2. To show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence; prove: demonstrate a proposition. (Ed. Note, this definition is a proposition, not a fact)‬
‪3. To present by experiments, examples, or practical application; explain and illustrate: demonstrated the laws of physics with laboratory equipment.‬
‪4. To show the use of (an article) to a prospective buyer: The salesperson plugged in and demonstrated the vacuum cleaner.‬
v.intr.
1. To give a demonstration: described the dance step, then took a partner and demonstrated.
2. To participate in a public display of opinion: demonstrated against tax hikes.

- [Latin dēm�nstr�re, dēm�nstr�t- : dē-, completely; see de- + m�nstr�re, to show (from m�nstrum, divine portent, from monēre, to warn; see men- in Indo-European roots).]
- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

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?

I don’t think that statement makes sense. How can the entire body be incomplete? It’s either the entire body or it’s incomplete. Have we found the entire body of fossils? How does one know? But to guesstimate the possible total number, found and unfound, by the number of found, alone, is impossible.

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.

What evidence? To expect intermediaries can only be done if one bases it upon ToE being true. In other words, you’re saying, “if ToE is fact, there will be intermediaries and because we assume to find intermediaries, ToE must be a fact.� Circular by 360^degrees.

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).

“There will be gaps (intermediaries) if ToE is true. As ToE is true, there will be gaps (intermediaries).� Again circular by 360^degrees. Besides, Homo naledi may well be, as I believe, just another concurrent variety with Homo family descendant from Adam. Just as a Great Dane is a concurrent variety to a Chihuahua both descendant from the original Canidae kind.

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.

Can you please re-link the article or previous mentions in this forum, in order that I may verify your conclusions. (Sorry if it seems that by not taking your word, that I don’t trust your interpretation or conclusion. It’s just that I don’t.)

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 311 by Still small]

Can you please re-link the article or previous mentions in this forum, in order that I may verify your conclusions. (Sorry if it seems that by not taking your word, that I don’t trust your interpretation or conclusion. It’s just that I don’t.)

Of course you don't! But you could just visit the AIG website (which I expect you have as a handy bookmark already) and search for "meteorite dating." There is a series of these articles, but look at the tables in this one (Tables 2-9):

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... hondrites/

Then scroll down to the Conclusions section where these are some exerpts (underline is mine):

"After decades of numerous careful radioisotope dating investigations of ordinary (O) chondrite meteorites (H, L, and LL groups) and enstatite (E) chondrite meteorites their Pb-Pb isochron age of 4.55–4.57 Ga has been well established. This date for these chondrite meteorites is supported for some of them by a strong clustering of their Pb-Pb isochron and model ages in the 4.55–4.57 Ga range, as well as being confirmed by both isochron and model age results via the U-Pb method, and to a lesser extent, by the Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Re-Os, and Sm-Nd methods. The Hf-W, Mn-Cr, and I-Xe methods are all calibrated against the Pb-Pb isochron method, so their results are not objectively independent. Thus the Pb-Pb isochron dating method stands supreme as the ultimate, most precise tool for determining the ages of the chondrite meteorites. "

"Similarly, the Hebrew text of Genesis could suggest God made “primordial material� on Day One of the Creation Week from which He made the earth on Day One and the non-earth portion of the solar system on Day Four, so today’s measured radioisotope compositions of these O and E chondrite meteorites may reflect a geochemical signature of that “primordial material,� which included atoms of all elemental isotopes created by God. Therefore if some of the daughter isotopes were thus “inherited� by these O and E chondrite meteorites when they were formed from that “primordial material,� and the parent isotopes in the meteorite were also subject to some subsequent accelerated radioisotope decay, then the 4.55–4.57 Ga Pb-Pb isochron “age� for these O and E chondrite meteorites cannot be their true real-time age, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years."

So they acknowledge the remarkable consistency of the radiometric dating data that they carefully summarize (as I stated in the earlier post), then posit some "primoridal material" having faster decay rates as an explanation for the old ages which they view as not possibly being correct because the bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old. Statement of faith again, blocking a proper analysis of the scientific data. They don't even seem to challenge radiometric dating as an accurate method as most creationists (wrongly) do, but offer up this "primordial material" explanation instead. The correct answer, or course, is that the Earth IS about 4.6 billion years old and no excuses are needed.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 312 by DrNoGods]

Yea, but you have a problem with a chondrite meteorite. You see most chondrite meteorites have olivine in them. The problem with having olivine in them is that olivine is a silicate and for a silicate to form out in space would mean that the temperature would have to raise to 1300 F and then cooled slowly over a long period of time. Chondrites also have water in them so they would have to be made in the presents of water. That does not sound like a space environment to me.

Just a little insertion. now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Still small]

So they acknowledge the remarkable consistency of the radiometric dating data that they carefully summarize (as I stated in the earlier post), then posit some "primoridal material" having faster decay rates as an explanation for the old ages which they view as not possibly being correct because the bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old. Statement of faith again, blocking a proper analysis of the scientific data. They don't even seem to challenge radiometric dating as an accurate method as most creationists (wrongly) do, but offer up this "primordial material" explanation instead. The correct answer, or course, is that the Earth IS about 4.6 billion years old and no excuses are needed.

While Snelling does not challenge radiometric dating, per se, he does appear to question the conclusions drawn based on the assumptions used according to the naturalistic “statement of faith�.

“The assumptions on which the radioisotope dating methods are based are simply unprovable, and in the light of the possibility of an inherited primordial geochemical signature, and the evidence for both possible past accelerated radioisotope decay and mixing of isotopes in earth rocks, these assumptions are unreasonable.� (link)

Therefore, depending upon one’s perspective (or bias) and upon the a priori (assumptions) either conclusion may be wrong (or both). And to ‘cut the legs off the possible argument’, consensus does not determine truth or fact.

So we’re back to square one.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 314 by Still small]

according to the naturalistic “statement of faith�.

There is no naturalistic "statement of faith." This is the usual anti-science attempt to equate scientific "facts" (eg. the heliocentric model of our solar system) with faith-based beliefs such as religion which have no experimental or observational support behind them. There is virtually no equivalence there.

The assumptions on which the radioisotope dating methods are based are simply unprovable

They aren't "assumptions"! Radioactive decay of atoms has been studied since the mid 1800s. It is observable, measurable, quantifiable, and used an all kinds of real world applications (eg. geiger counters, nuclear bombs and reactors for power generation, RTGs for powering spacecraft, smoke detectors, certain watches and clocks, agriculture, pest control, and many other examples). It is well understood and not based on some faith-based assumptions as you seem to be implying (or Snelling). We could not have designed (theoretically) then built (physically) the fission bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 without a very good understanding of the physics behind the radioactive decay of atoms, and this is exactly the same physics used in radiometric dating. To say it is based on "assumptions", or a priori, is simply not reality. It isn't.

and in the light of the possibility of an inherited primordial geochemical signature

The possibility? This is a purely made up idea with no observational basis, in an attempt to explain away the radiometric dating results that contradict biblical chronology. You can't put that out as being as legitimate as the known and observable physics behind radioactive decay in atomic nuclei. One is an observable fact (radioactive decay at predictable rates), and the other is simply pulled from thin air as a lame attempt to counter observations that contradict biblical tall tales.

So we’re back to square one.

No ... you've just claimed that observable science is analogous to assumptions and relies on a statement of faith, and that radioactive decay in atomic nuclei is not understood and is based on assumptions (both incorrect as shown by the many real world uses of the effect, which are based on good understanding of the physics behind the process). Do you believe that the fission bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 were designed and built based on faulty assumptions and reliance on faith?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 315 by DrNoGods]

They aren't "assumptions"! Radioactive decay of atoms has been studied since the mid 1800s. It is observable, measurable, quantifiable, and used an all kinds of real world applications (eg. geiger counters, nuclear bombs and reactors for power generation, RTGs for powering spacecraft, smoke detectors, certain watches and clocks, agriculture, pest control, and many other examples). It is well understood and not based on some faith-based assumptions as you seem to be implying (or Snelling). We could not have designed (theoretically) then built (physically) the fission bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 without a very good understanding of the physics behind the radioactive decay of atoms, and this is exactly the same physics used in radiometric dating. To say it is based on "assumptions", or a priori, is simply not reality. It isn't.

Here are the assumptions


Geology is also well understood, like the Bowen reaction series. Which explains the different rock types according to density and melting points. This is the problem with radioactive dating. Like for example Uranium and lead. Uranium has a density of 19.1 g/cm3. Lead has a density of 11.34 g/cm3. Radioactive dating is based on the assumption of even mixing in the magma but with this large difference in density and reactivities this is not possible. In fact it is the difference in densities and melting points that give the earth the different kinds of rocks that we have. So it is quite obvious that we do not have even mixing.

Along with the difference in densities there is also the difference in diffusion rates. Elements with lower atomic weight will diffuse faster than those with larger atomic weights. Again changing the mixture.

So when samples are taken, if the ratio of "parent/standard" and "daughter/standard" does not have a slope then the sample is discarded. This is an assumption of age. But U-Pb is not used as an accurate measurement for the age of the earth.

What is considered more accurate is K-Ar.

Now in K-Ar the assumption is that all of Ar escapes in molten form. And all of the Ar that is found in the rock is from the decomposition of K. Because of diffusion the "standard" that is used will escape faster than the daughter product in the magma this would give older dates. This is obviously the case because of the bogus dates given on young rock.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 315 by DrNoGods]

They aren't "assumptions"! Radioactive decay of atoms has been studied since the mid 1800s. It is observable, measurable, quantifiable, and used an all kinds of real world applications (eg. geiger counters, nuclear bombs and reactors for power generation, RTGs for powering spacecraft, smoke detectors, certain watches and clocks, agriculture, pest control, and many other examples). It is well understood and not based on some faith-based assumptions as you seem to be implying (or Snelling). We could not have designed (theoretically) then built (physically) the fission bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 without a very good understanding of the physics behind the radioactive decay of atoms, and this is exactly the same physics used in radiometric dating. To say it is based on "assumptions", or a priori, is simply not reality. It isn't.

Here are the assumptions


Geology is also well understood, like the Bowen reaction series. Which explains the different rock types according to density and melting points. This is the problem with radioactive dating. Like for example Uranium and lead. Uranium has a density of 19.1 g/cm3. Lead has a density of 11.34 g/cm3. Radioactive dating is based on the assumption of even mixing in the magma but with this large difference in density and reactivities this is not possible. In fact it is the difference in densities and melting points that give the earth the different kinds of rocks that we have. So it is quite obvious that we do not have even mixing.

Along with the difference in densities there is also the difference in diffusion rates. Elements with lower atomic weight will diffuse faster than those with larger atomic weights. Again changing the mixture.

So when samples are taken, if the ratio of "parent/standard" and "daughter/standard" does not have a slope then the sample is discarded. This is an assumption of age. But U-Pb is not used as an accurate measurement for the age of the earth.

What is considered more accurate is K-Ar.

Now in K-Ar the assumption is that all of Ar escapes in molten form. And all of the Ar that is found in the rock is from the decomposition of K. Because of diffusion the "standard" that is used will escape faster than the daughter product in the magma this would give older dates. This is obviously the case because of the bogus dates given on young rock.

The overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field. He wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:

These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).
We scientists who measure isotope ages do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self-checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. Whenever possible we design an age study to take advantage of other ways of checking the reliability of the age measurements. The simplest means is to repeat the analytical measurements in order to check for laboratory errors. Another method is to make age measurements on several samples from the same rock unit. This technique helps identify post-formation geologic disturbances because different minerals respond differently to heating and chemical changes. The isochron techniques are partly based on this principle.

The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... bility.php

The evidence is not in your favor.