[_ Old Earth _] Creationist theory of adaptation

[Deep Thought]

This is a serious question. I'm curious as to what process creationists put forward to explain adaptation (or micro-evolution if you prefer).

 

[Patashu]

I've heard of it described in lamarckian terms: creatures see that they need a trait to survive in the environment they're going to and so they develop it within a generation.
The other way is through some kind of genetic unloading process; the original creatures (either before flood or the ones taken off from it) are described as having many extra sets of DNA which are somehow split apart and different sections given to different offspring. Something like that.

 

[BobRyan]

This is a serious question. I'm curious as to what process creationists put forward to explain adaptation (or micro-evolution if you prefer).

God is infinitely wise and infinitely powerful.

God "designed" the encoding translating and decoding system for DNA AS WELL AS the storage convention, The "readers" were created to translate that code into amino acid chains as needed to create the necessary proteins and enzymes requested by the cell.

Adaptation is what makes the code "adaptive, reactive and defensive". In heuristics this is a key problem to solve in the code. The mechanism for adaptation could be the presence of trigger proteins or enzymes -- however since even a single cell is almost infinitely complex I don't think we can blindly assume one or the other.

Or -- "rocks did it". (Actually I think "aliens did it" is becoming more popular among some atheist Darwinians like Dawkins these days)

you choose.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

Hmm, I think you need to elaborate more. What stimuli in the environment would trigger this 'adaption'? Once triggered, what happens and how long does it take, and can we see the effects? Can you demonstrate a real life adaption event or one in the fossil record?

I also think calling the cell 'infinitely complex' is a misnomer, seeing as it takes up only a finite amount of space with a finite amount of matter. Try 'very complex' instead?

And one last thing; Dawkins only presented the idea of aliens instigating life on earth as an example situation under which ID would be legitimate science but without invoking God. He also points out that such a situation only moves the problem back, as now the aliens have to had originally formed abiogenetically and evolved without the hand of their own designer. He doesn't actually believe this and I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head who does, it was presented merely as an example.

 

[Jayls5]

And one last thing; Dawkins only presented the idea of aliens instigating life on earth as an example situation under which ID would be legitimate science but without invoking God. He also points out that such a situation only moves the problem back, as now the aliens have to had originally formed abiogenetically and evolved without the hand of their own designer. He doesn't actually believe this and I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head who does, it was presented merely as an example.

Yet, I'm sure this character attack will become more frequent the more often creationists view that new documentary (that lied to him and twisted his words).

 

[Heidi]

This is a serious question. I'm curious as to what process creationists put forward to explain adaptation (or micro-evolution if you prefer).

It's simple. Each animal reproduces itself, hence the term "reproduction". Adaptation is a made up theory by man to try to defy God. And since animals don't breed other species, it's as ludicrous as it is impossible. ;-)

 

[Patashu]

This is a serious question. I'm curious as to what process creationists put forward to explain adaptation (or micro-evolution if you prefer).

It's simple. Each animal reproduces itself, hence the term "reproduction". Adaptation is a made up theory by man to try to defy God. And since animals don't breed other species, it's as ludicrous as it is impossible. ;-)

But here's the problem; there are millions of species identified in the world today (hundreds and thousands of beetle species alone for example), yet Noah's Ark only had finite space. Where did all these new species come from since the flood?

In addition, in humans today we see up to dozens of different alleles in the same genetic locus, yet Noah and his wife and sons couldn't have had more than 8 different alleles at the same genetic locus (at most, this is assuming complete heterozyny). Where did the extra alleles come from?

 

[jmm9683]

It's simple. Each animal reproduces itself, hence the term "reproduction". Adaptation is a made up theory by man to try to defy God. And since animals don't breed other species, it's as ludicrous as it is impossible. ;-)

Your utter lack of evolutionary biology is astounding. Heres one example of speciation that has happened recently:

The mosquito species Culex molestus lives only in the underground of the British city of London, having descended from a population of the species C. pipiens that was stranded there over a century ago. The two species are physically and genetically similar, but can not interbreed, and prefer different prey (the former prefers humans and rodents whereas the latter prefers birds).

Evolution isn't a straight line occurrence. You have to think of it as a tree, with different species branching out. The old claim by creationists that no monkey has given birth to a human doesn't even make sense in evolutionary terms; in fact that would disprove the theory of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees do however share a common ancestor, the most recent data suggests that humans and chimpanzees speciated apart 4.1 million years ago.

 

[Deep Thought]

Adaptation is what makes the code "adaptive, reactive and defensive". In heuristics this is a key problem to solve in the code. The mechanism for adaptation could be the presence of trigger proteins or enzymes -- however since even a single cell is almost infinitely complex I don't think we can blindly assume one or the other.
Bob

So to summarise, you are not sure what causes adaptation. I haven't bothered to research creationist sites yet, as I thought some of the resident creationists on this site would know.

 

[Heidi]

It's simple. Each animal reproduces itself, hence the term "reproduction". Adaptation is a made up theory by man to try to defy God. And since animals don't breed other species, it's as ludicrous as it is impossible. ;-)

Your utter lack of evolutionary biology is astounding. Heres one example of speciation that has happened recently:

The mosquito species Culex molestus lives only in the underground of the British city of London, having descended from a population of the species C. pipiens that was stranded there over a century ago. The two species are physically and genetically similar, but can not interbreed, and prefer different prey (the former prefers humans and rodents whereas the latter prefers birds).

Evolution isn't a straight line occurrence. You have to think of it as a tree, with different species branching out. The old claim by creationists that no monkey has given birth to a human doesn't even make sense in evolutionary terms; in fact that would disprove the theory of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees do however share a common ancestor, the most recent data suggests that humans and chimpanzees speciated apart 4.1 million years ago.

: Your naivete is astounding.

First of all, how do they know that it descended from another species? Did they see one species breed it? No. They're just guessing. That's no different than a documentary i saw last year of people who went to Islands where they said that no one has ever been before. But then they said that the sea creatures look different than they used to. :o So how could they know that when no one has ever seen the sea creatures? They couldn't. They just say so and the public believes anything they say. So sorry, but suggestions and conjecture aren't science, just imaginary scenarios. ;-)

And considering that they've never found any common ancestor, then they can't know what he even looked like or if he was even an ape. So they can't know when he separated of if he even existed or if speciation even occurred! Therefore, he's as fictitious as the flying spaghetti monster. ;-) Again, your naivete is astounding. :roll:

 

[BobRyan]

[
: Your naivete is astounding.

First of all, how do they know that it descended from another species? Did they see one species breed it? No. They're just guessing.

As the well known atheist darwinist icon Colin Patterson once said " stories about how one thing came from another are 'simply stories' - easy enough to tell - but it is not science" (Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History)

As we saw in the cause of the junk-science fraudulent presentation of Simpson's horse series in 1951 -- (A junk science presentation of as evolutuionary sequence that atheist darwinst today now freely admit "NEVER happened in Nature") -- the quesswork that goes into the atheist darwinism leaves little room at all for real science.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[quote="Deep Thought":782e1]
Adaptation is what makes the code "adaptive, reactive and defensive". In heuristics this is a key problem to solve in the code. The mechanism for adaptation could be the presence of trigger proteins or enzymes -- however since even a single cell is almost infinitely complex I don't think we can blindly assume one or the other.
Bob

So to summarise, you are not sure what causes adaptation. I haven't bothered to research creationist sites yet, as I thought some of the resident creationists on this site would know.[/quote:782e1]

I already stated that the presence of proteins and enzymes activates genes. That is simply "fact".

Recall that 11 second befuddlement of Dawkinst in the "Dawkins Delusion" video where he was asked to give just ONE EXAMPLE of evolution of a species ADDING genetic informtation?

Doesn't happen.

But what you asked is the question of adaptation "short haired dogs become long haired dogs over time with breeding and environmental changes".

What "causes that" other than the genetic recombinations due to breeding? We don't know every enzyme and every protein that might be produced by the body due to a reaction to the environment nor how they might activate and deactivate every possible gene sequence.

Just a fact of life.

my point in the post above is that the ARCHITECTURE that provides a framework for "favorable adaptation" to the environment in a reactive manner is a factor of DESIGN not undirected gasses interacting.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But here's the problem; there are millions of species identified in the world today (hundreds and thousands of beetle species alone for example), yet Noah's Ark only had finite space. Where did all these new species come from since the flood?

1. We do not have "infinite species" nor do we have the ability even by Darwinian standards to define species precisely.

2. The "salient" argument of atheist darwinianism is that all species come from a common ancestor. This point has never been proven to be true.

We know that there are adaptations -- but tree dwelling hyrax did not "become" a horse though the now-debunked junk-science (at best fraudulent at worst) horse series tried show that it did.

In addition, in humans today we see up to dozens of different alleles in the same genetic locus, yet Noah and his wife and sons couldn't have had more than 8 different alleles at the same genetic locus (at most, this is assuming complete heterozyny). Where did the extra alleles come from?

Mitochondrial EVE is a given today. The DNA comes only from the mother and all races of man are now known to have only ONE mother.

Y-Chromosome ADAM is ALSO a given today. This is another case where you only inherit from the paternal side and we know that ALL humans came from ONE Man --

Atheist Darwinism loses ground whenever it is exposed to "the light of day".

This result is "easily a prediction" of the Creationist model for origins. It is "a shocking surprise" for the atheist darwinist model because it assumes "a one in a zillion lucky shot" and each time you get a "just so... one in a zillion lucky shot" story piled on top of story -- you have "a clue" you are wayyyyy down the wrong road.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Part II in the "Creationist story predicts it" sequence --

1. The saturation point for background radiation in the universe has already been reached. This (even by atheist cosmologist standards) is WAYYYY too soon. Not enough time for complete saturation in a Universe that is 156Billion lightyears wide.

To make it WORSE - when they did the WMAP for that radition back to a point 30 times closer to the CREATION event for the universe -- they SEE that EVEN THEN the saturation point is completely reached!!

In the Genesis model God makes a FULLY FORMED ADULT human from day one -- not a zygote.

The same is true for the planet in the Genesis model - the 7th sequence of "evening and then morning" reveals a biosphere fully formed -- not a bunch of single celled organisms laying around.

2. The universe at 156 Billion Lightyears across - is still only a small fraction of that in terms of "years old" -- that means a sudden "God spoke and IT WAS" spread out to a distance of about 140 Billion Lightyears. An ENTIRE UNIVERSE moving faster than the speed of light -- a fact accepted by atheist cosmologists today!!

One by one the pillars of the Creationist model are "being discovered by atheist researchers".

They have done a good job of "storytelling around those discoveries" hoping that Christians "won't notice" -- but nevertheless it is there.

How "surprising".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Another fact of science in favor of God's account -- not atheist origin accounts (which is "sad news" to some Christians today for some innexplicable reason).

The Sun and all it's satellite planets were formed from the second same cloud of gass and dust according to atheist cosmologists. However the Sun has the highest concentration by percentage of hydrogen and helium as compared to Earth and other satellite planets.

Think abou that -- it means the LIGHTER ELEMENTS concentrated in the CENTER of that primordial cloud's gravitational field while the HEAVIER elements like Iron and Uranium etc were more dense at the outer edges forming the planets!!

How "unnexpected" for the atheist cosmology.

But this fact fits well into God's Genesis model for origins where the Sun is created on day 4 and it's PURPOSE is to give light (the hydrogen-to-helium fusion process being key to it's primary function).

So instead of being "a giant earth that was so big it caught fire" it is in fact SPECIFICALLY designed for making light at a range and temperature perfect for this third-planet.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A prediction:

Regardless of the science "Facts" found to favor God's Genesis model for origins -- there will STILL be Christians posting here whining and complaining about those facts AS IF anything in nature that is found to be in harmony with the Word of Nature's Creator is in fact "a bad thing" for a certain group of Christians who have bought into what we now know today as "distinctively atheist darwinianism" and somewhat atheist cosmology.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Another fact of science in favor of God's account -- not atheist origin accounts (which is "sad news" to some Christians today for some innexplicable reason).

The Sun and all it's satellite planets were formed from the second same cloud of gass and dust according to atheist cosmologists. However the Sun has the highest concentration by percentage of hydrogen and helium as compared to Earth and other satellite planets.

Think abou that -- it means the LIGHTER ELEMENTS concentrated in the CENTER of that primordial cloud's gravitational field while the HEAVIER elements like Iron and Uranium etc were more dense at the outer edges forming the planets!!

How "unnexpected" for the atheist cosmology.

But this fact fits well into God's Genesis model for origins where the Sun is created on day 4 and it's PURPOSE is to give light (the hydrogen-to-helium fusion process being key to it's primary function).

So instead of being "a giant earth that was so big it caught fire" it is in fact SPECIFICALLY designed for making light at a range and temperature perfect for this third-planet.

In Christ,

Bob

You do not seem to understand that there exists a bit more than gravity in the universe.

For anyone who does not know much about the models for the formation of solar systems and would actually enjoy reading something on them, this wiki is pretty interesting (though not authorative) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Syst ... _evolution

Skip down to the 3rd section. It talks about formation. Really interesting stuff.

atheist cosmology

So, now all cosmologists are atheists as well? You are becoming more and more the judge of faith. Seems like someone on here sets up his personal faith as the rule for others. Dangerous theological grounds. Hmmm, I wonder what the scripture has to say about that.......

 

[VaultZero4Me]

But here's the problem; there are millions of species identified in the world today (hundreds and thousands of beetle species alone for example), yet Noah's Ark only had finite space. Where did all these new species come from since the flood?

1. We do not have "infinite species" nor do we have the ability even by Darwinian standards to define species precisely.

2. The "salient" argument of atheist darwinianism is that all species come from a common ancestor. This point has never been proven to be true.

We know that there are adaptations -- but tree dwelling hyrax did not "become" a horse though the now-debunked junk-science (at best fraudulent at worst) horse series tried show that it did.

In addition, in humans today we see up to dozens of different alleles in the same genetic locus, yet Noah and his wife and sons couldn't have had more than 8 different alleles at the same genetic locus (at most, this is assuming complete heterozyny). Where did the extra alleles come from?

Mitochondrial EVE is a given today. The DNA comes only from the mother and all races of man are now known to have only ONE mother.

Y-Chromosome ADAM is ALSO a given today. This is another case where you only inherit from the paternal side and we know that ALL humans came from ONE Man --

Atheist Darwinism loses ground whenever it is exposed to "the light of day".

This result is "easily a prediction" of the Creationist model for origins. It is "a shocking surprise" for the atheist darwinist model because it assumes "a one in a zillion lucky shot" and each time you get a "just so... one in a zillion lucky shot" story piled on top of story -- you have "a clue" you are wayyyyy down the wrong road.

in Christ,

Bob

Was there any substance to your argument here? I seem to be missing it. I re-read it a couple of times and all I seem to find are ad hom and assertions.

Would you be so kind and point out the substance?

 

[jmm9683]

: Your naivete is astounding.

First of all, how do they know that it descended from another species? Did they see one species breed it? No. They're just guessing. That's no different than a documentary i saw last year of people who went to Islands where they said that no one has ever been before. But then they said that the sea creatures look different than they used to. :o So how could they know that when no one has ever seen the sea creatures? They couldn't. They just say so and the public believes anything they say. So sorry, but suggestions and conjecture aren't science, just imaginary scenarios. ;-)

And considering that they've never found any common ancestor, then they can't know what he even looked like or if he was even an ape. So they can't know when he separated of if he even existed or if speciation even occurred! Therefore, he's as fictitious as the flying spaghetti monster. ;-) Again, your naivete is astounding. :roll:

I, like many others on this forum, have found it pointless to argue with you, all you do is put your fingers in your ears when anything you don't want to hear is mentioned. Just saying something isn't science doesn't make it true. Saying goddidit for everything makes you look like the naive one.

 

[jmm9683]

Mitochondrial EVE is a given today. The DNA comes only from the mother and all races of man are now known to have only ONE mother.

Y-Chromosome ADAM is ALSO a given today. This is another case where you only inherit from the paternal sideare wayyyyy down the wrong road.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived 30,000 years apart...