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.

[Diagoras]

I am not sure where else this may have been published but does that determine the truth of the subject?

No, not in isolation, but if any scientific theory is to be supported, it should properly be peer-reviewed. In effect, ‘debated’ to determine whether or not its findings are correct and repeatable. If this paper you refer to has been peer-reviewed then it strengthens your claims, otherwise we should simply reserve judgment.

While I have done a great deal of investigation into naturalistic methods before ruling them out, how much investigation have you done into genuine creationistic methods (beyond the petty ‘god dunnit’, ‘god-magic’ and ‘invisible sky daddy’ style comments)?

For the record, I don’t recall ever making such ‘petty’ comments, although I can certainly accept that you’ve seen similar comments from other people. I’ll be perfectly willing to retract any such remark I’ve made if you wish.

As a broader point though, I genuinely don’t believe it’s useful for us (the collective ‘us’, not just you and me individually) to bring ‘quantity of research’ into the debate. As a comparison, some fans of conspiracy theories put up vast quantities of what they see as ‘evidence’, and expect the other side to fully investigate every single claim the same way. To be clear, I’m not suggesting this tactic is being used here, but my response to your point about having investigated a lot of scientific claims and found them wanting would be to invite you to put up just your strongest (most compelling to you) argument for debate.

I note that this thread has moved on considerably from the original question, and that ‘scattergun’ approach (by multiple posters, not just you) might be partly the reason for that. I’ll happy engage with a more tightly-defined debate on the accuracy of claims for the age of the earth, if you like, which might be more appropriate for this sub-forum, rather than a more ‘philosophy of science’ discussion.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 355 by Still small]

While I have done a great deal of investigation into naturalistic methods before ruling them out, how much investigation have you done into genuine creationistic methods (beyond the petty ‘god dunnit’, ‘god-magic’ and ‘invisible sky daddy’ style comments)?

What on earth are "genuine creationistic methods"? How do they differ from the scientific method and in what way can they be established as better, or at least reliable?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 354 by Still small]

‘Indirect observations’, are only an interpretation as to what may have actually occurred. Again, all evidential interpretations, whether they be naturalism or creationism, are subject to one’s bias or a priori .

In science, observations can take many forms, either directly (e.g. by seeing, feeling, or hearing), or indirectly by extending and refining our basic senses with tools: thermometers, microscopes, telescopes, mass spectrometers, etc. These tools actually do a much better job of observing than we can, as they don’t have any predetermined ‘bias’ about what they observe. As we cannot directly sense many of the phenomena that science investigates (e.g. electrons are too small to see with the human eye, and gravity is an ‘invisible’ force), we must rely on indirect observations facilitated by such tools. The fact that many different scientists can independently and repeatedly ‘sense’ things like the charge on an electron, or the radioactive half-life of an element, and reach the same conclusion, demonstrates that indirect observation is in fact often the best way to validate (or falsify) a hypothesis.

DrNoGods has already made this point with his examples of ‘hard’ sciences, but the over-arching point has to be stated clearly: good science recognises that bias exists, both in the scientist themselves, and the instruments they use (accuracy, for example). Proper experimentation, and robust peer-review, is specifically designed to address, and eliminate as far as practical, these biases. When we do so, we eventually arrive at scientific theories and laws. When you can provide any research paper that demonstrates a similar level of self-checking and peer-review for a creationist claim, then you’ll likely see a much more ‘open’ response from the non-theist audience here.

[Diagoras]

I mainly listed it as an example of that in the first paper - The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations of which, so far, I have yet to see any comment by yourself or others.

Possibly because it’s rather difficult to summarise. I’d say it’s essentially applying a statistical method to one aspect of an outdated theory, but I don’t really fully understand the paper. Perhaps you do? What, for example, should we take from:

We now present equations for deterministic models for the mutation–selection process that assume an infinite population. The mutation process in the model is explicitly incorporated by a matrix of values that provide the mutation rate from one genotype (or allele) to a different one.

I don’t understand this, so can’t meaningfully comment. Not because I think it’s ‘rubbish’, or ‘biased’. Can you explain in simple terms what exactly about it you found so compelling?

[EarthScienceguy]

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

The burden of proof is not on the creationist. Mendelian genetics is very well understood. How can organisms escape the destructive build-up of deleterious mutations is a serious problem for those that believe in evolutionary theology.

[Difflugia]

The burden of proof is not on the creationist. Mendelian genetics is very well understood. How can organisms escape the destructive build-up of deleterious mutations is a serious problem for those that believe in evolutionary theology.

Are you saying that the mutations don't happen or are you saying that all populations are steadily reducing in fitness without exception? Or that there's a mechanism other than natural selection that is reducing the burden of deleterious mutations in existing populations?

Unless you mean it in some sort of philosophical sense (no creationist has to offer any evidence for anything ever), the "burden of proof" rather depends on what it is one is claiming.

What are you claiming?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia]

I indicated what it was that I was claiming. Mendelian genetics are the cause of the diversity that we see in nature.

I even indicated why evolution was impossible. The very mechanism that evolutionary theology says causes diversity, in fact cause deleterious genetic build up that causes the extinction of species.

[Neatras]

Another desperate attempt to shill the debunked and unrealistic concept of "genetic entropy." Unfortunately, the science is settled: That "build-up" of deleterious mutations doesn't lead to mutagenic collapse, even in the most generous simulations. Kimura's work was horribly warped, and as a result your entire outlook on biological science is woefully underequipped to deal with the fact of evolution.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 365 by Neatras]

Genome sequencing technology has progressed very rapidly in only the last few years. Nature just published results of the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), the largest survey of human genes to date. (An “exome� is the portion of the genome that codes for proteins.) The exomes from 60,706 individuals from a variety of ethnic groups have been collected and analyzed. If we multiply 60,000 people by the 20,000 genes in the human genome (the lowest estimate), we get a minimum of 1.2 billion genes that have been examined by ExAC for variants. That sounds like a pretty good sample size for scrutinizing some of those beneficial variations that Darwin said his law of natural selection could add up and preserve.

But not one beneficial mutation was found in those 1.2 billion genes. There were many neutral and deleterious mutations found but not one beneficial.

The problem with evolution is the belief that beneficial mutations occur in genes that control early development. There is no evidence of any mutation in these genes being beneficial. If mutations cannot be used to change body plans which is controlled in these early development genes.

Get back with me when this problem is solved and then we can move on to the next problem.

Until then just face man, evolution is lie.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 366 by EarthScienceguy]

Oh please, like any creationist is allowed by their superiors to accept any mutation as beneficial. The ideology of supernaturalism depends on the idea that descent with modification can't produce anything. On the other hand, researchers have done long-term gene sequencing and determined that the development of de novo genes is actually quite easy to track and extrapolate over known deep time.

Proto-Genes and De Novo Gene Birth

Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza.

They've managed to determine that the rate of de novo gene development takes place at approximately 50 new genes per million years.

Meanwhile, you assert, without evidence, the myth of genetic entropy. Take a page out of your own book, creationism is a hack pseudoscience, and every modern scientific community knew that 100 years ago. You'll never be able to trick the sciences and academia into buying supernaturalism, even with fallacies and misleading rhetoric that form the life-blood of Christian apologia.