Rapid Adaptation

[6days]

Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"
:jump:

Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.

 

[Stripe]

Now this is my kind of thread. :banana:

Get it? Kind. :chuckle:

:noid:

 

[Stripe]

Creationists should not use the word "species." It has numerous definitions that shift about, keeping the concept vague and malleable. The word (and all its derivatives) is next to useless in a scientific setting.

 

[Jose Fly]

Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model.

What exactly is the "creation model"?

The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation.

Stripe, do you agree with this?

Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome.

Do you agree that natural selection is a mechanism behind rapid speciation Stripe?

Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

Stripe, do you agree that these new species developed in a few hundred years?

Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Do you agree Stripe?

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad.

Stripe, you said speciation never happens. So how do you account for this documented speciation event?

 

[6days]

What exactly is the "creation model"?

God created the various kinds ...'programmed' or provided them with a wide phenotypic spectrum of genetic information allowing them to survive in various environments.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Articles-Beginnings-TheFossilRecord-WhySoManySpecies
http://www.icr.org/article/creation-mutation-variation/

Stripe, do you agree with this?

Stripe has already answered saying he doesn't agree with the term, and he explained why.

 

[Alate_One]

I don't think 6days understands the paper in question. Nobody *observed* the frogs suddenly dropping part of their life cycle. The evidence is inferred by the close genetic relationship of frogs with direct development and ones that retain a tadpole stage. The entire paper is based on phylogenetic analysis. The same kind of analysis shows humans and frogs share a common ancestor.

I didn't think creationists accepted that kind of evidence.

Stripe, 6days Are all frogs one "kind" or not?

-edit-

If ANY of you think the OP is evidence, you're seriously mistaken. Here's the abstract from the frog paper:

Understanding phenotypic diversity requires not only identification of selective factors that favor origins of derived states, but also factors that favor retention of primitive states. Anurans (frogs and toads) exhibit a remarkable diversity of reproductive modes that is unique among terrestrial vertebrates. Here, we analyze the evolution of these modes, using comparative methods on a phylogeny and matched life-history database of 720 species, including most families and modes. As expected, modes with terrestrial eggs and aquatic larvae often precede direct development (terrestrial egg, no tadpole stage), but surprisingly, direct development evolves directly from aquatic breeding nearly as often. Modes with primitive exotrophic larvae (feeding outside the egg) frequently give rise to direct developers, whereas those with nonfeeding larvae (endotrophic) do not. Similarly, modes with eggs and larvae placed in locations protected from aquatic predators evolve frequently but rarely give rise to direct developers. Thus, frogs frequently bypass many seemingly intermediate stages in the evolution of direct development. We also find significant associations between terrestrial reproduction and reduced clutch size, larger egg size, reduced adult size, parental care, and occurrence in wetter and warmer regions. These associations may help explain the widespread retention of aquatic eggs and larvae, and the overall diversity of anuran reproductive modes.

The "rapid" the paper describes is as follows:

Although we cannot rule out this possibility, seemingly direct transitions from aquatic eggs to direct development occurred more rapidly (mean= 27.81 my ± 7.76 SE, based on summed branch lengths) than changes from aquatic eggs to terrestrial eggs to direct development (mean = 53.20 my± 10.02 SE; ANOVA F1,13=4.13, P=0.06).

That's 28 Million years vs. 53 Million years. Far longer than you even think the earth has been around. :chuckle: :loser:

6days apparently thinks 28 million years is one generation. :rotfl:

Posted originally here

 

[Jose Fly]

God created the various kinds

What is a "kind"?

...'programmed' or provided them with a wide phenotypic spectrum of genetic information allowing them to survive in various environments.

How? By giving them extra chromosomes?

Stripe has already answered saying he doesn't agree with the term, and he explained why.

He said he doesn't like the term "species". Let's see how he answers (or if he does at all...my prediction is that he'll do what he always does).

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think 6days understands the paper in question. Nobody *observed* the frogs suddenly dropping part of their life cycle. The evidence is inferred by the close genetic relationship of frogs with direct development and ones that retain a tadpole stage. The entire paper is based on phylogenetic analysis.

IOW, 6days cited a paper where the results are based on evolutionary theory, and is trying to claim it as evidence of the "creation model" (whatever that is).

Creationists sure are good for lulz.

 

[6days]

The entire paper is based on phylogenetic analysis. The same kind of analysis shows humans and frogs share a common ancestor.

Pffffft
Evolutionists think we also share a common ancestor with grass.

Stripe, 6days Are all frogs one "kind" or not?

We don't know for sure. But from God's Word we know frogs come from frogs...and dogs from dogs. From God's Word we know that land animals did not evolve into the great sea creatures.
Genesis 1
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures...
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds
23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

 

[Stripe]

What is a "kind"?

You've already heard the answer to this question. How about you repeat it accurately. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

I told you Stripe wouldn't answer questions.

 

[Stripe]

I told you Stripe wouldn't answer questions.

The definition of a kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

 

[Alate_One]

IOW, 6days cited a paper where the results are based on evolutionary theory, and is trying to claim it as evidence of the "creation model" (whatever that is).

Yep.

Pffffft
Evolutionists think we also share a common ancestor with grass.

We do. That's why you can put a human gene into grass and it still works.

We don't know for sure. But from God's Word we know frogs come from frogs...and dogs from dogs. From God's Word we know that land animals did not evolve into the great sea creatures.

And if you're just going to retreat into "God's word says" why even bother posting "evidence"? The evidence written into the world around us says old earth and evolution. And I believe God created both scripture and the universe we see.

A literal, modernist view of scripture tells us that birds and bats are the same thing, the earth is flat, the sun moves around the earth and rain falls from windows in the sky dome. Recalling that scripture is ancient literature should remind us not to try to use it as a science textbook.

 

[Alate_One]

The definition of a kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population.

It's a useless definition because you can never tell us how to figure out what was in that common ancestor population.

And scientifically it's a useless definition because genetics show us everything shared a common ancestor. There's no bright dividing line between things that share an ancestor and things that don't. All groups of organisms grade into one another.

 

[6days]

It's a useless definition because you can never tell us how to figure out what was in that common ancestor population.

What is useless is your argument based on a false belief system. (Common ancestor instead of common Designrt... the Creator). Evolutionist geneticists as well as creationist geneticists examine the same evidence...use the same scientific method.

 

[Eeset]

I have always admired Moses. He was highly educated. He was raised in Pharaoh's household and taught by the most learned men of that time. At age 80 he led an uneducated mass of people into the wilderness and they thirsted for understanding.

The first words in Genesis can be translated several ways. Some say "in the beginning" is correct. Yet those same ancient words can also be translated as simply "in beginning" which is to say "I'll start here". That is like an educator saying "let's first cover the basics".

And so Moses proceeds to provide a basic framework of the creation sequence or you might say how it happened or evolved. And for the most part he nailed it. Scientists even today are still developing models of how solar systems begin. Remarkably those models resemble what you find in genesis as to the basic sequence of events excluding the time frame. But if you replace "day" with the term "eon" or "epoch" the swirls of galactic dust coalescing into planets and the center bursting forth into a star (sun) fits. Water is, of course, fundamental to life as we experience it and there again Moses aligns with science.

So there you have it. The people wanted to know how it all happened and Moses told them.

 

[Jose Fly]

The definition of a kind is: All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population.

How do you establish what is and isn't descended from a universal ancestral population?

How do different populations descend from a common ancestral population, if no population ever evolves?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionist geneticists as well as creationist geneticists examine the same evidence...use the same scientific method.

Nope. Creationist organizations very clearly explain that they do not follow the scientific method.

Statement of Faith

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. ​

That's the exact opposite of the scientific method.

 

[Alate_One]

What is useless is your argument based on a false belief system. (Common ancestor instead of common Designrt... the Creator). Evolutionist geneticists as well as creationist geneticists examine the same evidence...use the same scientific method.

That's the problem. Creationists don't use the scientific method. They don't test hypotheses. They don't reject them if evidence points the other way. They cherry pick evidence they think supports their one idea.

Creationism is starting with a particular idea to begin with and then trying to find evidence to support it. You'll never reject it because you feel its an essential part of your belief system.

Science is testing hypotheses through observation and experiment and rejecting ideas that fail. Evolution is supported by vast amounts of evidence and has survived many different types of testing. It has even changed when evidence showed some of the details weren't described clearly. (See Modern Synthesis)

There's also nothing to say there isn't BOTH a common ancestor and a common designer. You just insist there can't be evolution, because your particular view of a particular scripture says so.

 

[6days]

That's the problem. Creationists don't use the scientific method.

*

If you believe that you don't know your history nor the scientific method. Did Francis Bacon use the scientific method? Kepler? Newton? Did Robert Boyle, Faraday or Pasteur use the scientific method? Do modern scientists such as John Sanford or Raymond Damadian use the scientific method? As Kepler said science is thinking God's thoughts after Him.*