Adaptation...

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Here's me, stuck in the quandry of where I 'fit' in all this origins discussion.

I believe God created the world in 7 days. Whether that is 7 literal days as well call it now, well, frankly, either way (ie literal, or in 'one day is a thousand' definition) doesn't cause too much of a consternation to me, so I just say IN SEVEN DAYS...

However, I believe in Adaptation. That being, that God placed certain mechanisms in every creature to be able to adapt to its environment. Ie, a dog for example. It has the ability placed in it to grow it's coat more coarse and thick when the weather is cold. Same with frogs - an ability to change gender as environment requires.

Where does this place me in this entire discussion on origins?

I can't say I'm OEC or YEC, cos I just believe it was 7 days, however that was meant in Genesis... Because I don't find it that integral to my faith (ie as God says, you are saved when you confess in my name that Jesus is Lord, etc etc), it doesn't really inspire me to go 'yes it was a literal 7 days' or 'no, God could have meant 1 day = 1000' back then... etc etc. I've seen a few flaws come to light on both sides of the debate, so I'm not ready to allign myself with one or the other.

The adaptation I mentioned up above has meant people have tended to place me in 'Theistic Evolution' 'boxes', however I'm not sure if that's where I really belong.

I believe God created the entire world, in His interpretation of 7 days, and that he placed within each creature the ability to adapt to environments as they changed.

Where the heck do I belong?

Sasch

 

[Dracil]

Maybe Evolutionary Creationism.

 

[gluadys]

Here's me, stuck in the quandry of where I 'fit' in all this origins discussion.

Where does this place me in this entire discussion on origins?


The adaptation I mentioned up above has meant people have tended to place me in 'Theistic Evolution' 'boxes', however I'm not sure if that's where I really belong.

I believe God created the entire world, in His interpretation of 7 days, and that he placed within each creature the ability to adapt to environments as they changed.

Where the heck do I belong?

Sasch

You could be TE depending on how you flesh out the notion of adaptation.

Mutation + natural selection in response to the local environment is a mechanism by which species adapt to their surroundings. What we see happening in a species as it adapts to its surroundings is a change in the frequency of certain alleles being expressed.

One of the best studied cases of that is the famous pepper moth situation.

Before industrialization and now after pollution controls have been put in place, the light-coloured moth is best adapted to its environment---and the alleles which give a moth light colour are found in most of the moths. The alleles which produce melanin and give a moth a dark colour are not seen as frequently.

But during the industrialization period when the landscape was blackened with soot, the darker moths became much more common than the lighter moths.

That is adaptation. That is adaptive evolution.

I don't know of any other way that God has provided for animals and plants and other living organisms to adapt to their environment. Other than human ingenuity. But that's a different story.

So, if you can accept that adaptive evolution is the mechanism God placed in every creature to be able to adapt to its environment, then you could be a theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist (which I see as just another name for the same basic belief).

 

[California Tim]

So, if you can accept that adaptive evolution is the mechanism God placed in every creature to be able to adapt to its environment, then you could be a theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist (which I see as just another name for the same basic belief)

Adaptation and speciation are two entirely different concepts. Adaptation takes place WITHIN the confines of a species. Evolution accepts the concept of adaptation, but depends on the possibility of speciation to explain the diversity of life. YEC'ists accept adaptation but reject speciation as a mechanism used to create the variety of species we see today. Personally, I take the latter view and accept the Genesis account as a literal historical narrative of how God created what we see today. It is plainly accounted that Adam and Eve were literal persons, were the first humans and were created in a fully mature state.

 

[Vance]

I'll just point out that we have seen speciation take place, as even AiG recognizes.

 

[gluadys]

Adaptation and speciation are two entirely different concepts. Adaptation takes place WITHIN the confines of a species.

That is correct, but since Sascha only mentioned adaptation, that is all I commented on. The mechanisms which lead to adaptation within a species are part of the process of evolution.

Evolution accepts the concept of adaptation, but depends on the possibility of speciation to explain the diversity of life. YEC'ists accept adaptation but reject speciation as a mechanism used to create the variety of species we see today.

Under appropriate circumstances the mechanisms which lead to adaptation within a species also lead to speciation, and that has been directly observed both in nature and in the laboratory. So it is difficult to see how one can accept adaptation yet reject speciation.

Personally, I take the latter view and accept the Genesis account as a literal historical narrative of how God created what we see today. It is plainly accounted that Adam and Eve were literal persons, were the first humans and were created in a fully mature state.

They are literal within the framework of the narrative, but I do not accept the narrative as historical. Nor do I find any reason in scripture to do so.

I accept that this is a point where we must agree to disagree. In fact, there is disagreement on this point among TEs. I have no interest in forcing my point of view about the historicity of the narrative on anyone else as long as no one tries to force their point of view on me.

 

[Singing Bush]

It's hard to say, Sascha, as there are no real textbook definitions of YEC, OEC, or TE aside from a few guidelines which can tell you what they specifically aren't. Since it doesn't seem you believe in a specific time frame for the creation process, you cannot of course be a YEC or OEC. That aside, however, you can still be a creationist in just about every other sense, which is what it seems like you are.

What begins to make things really squirrely, though, is that you can believe in both the fact and theory of evolution AND still believe in a literal creation at some point in the past. That's why I'm assuming Dracil decided to give you the term Evolutionary Creationist, even though this isn't really one of the major factions generally involved in the evolution/creation squabble fest. Maybe you should start your own movement? Change your name to Subcomandante Fitzpatrick and get yourself some flunkies...

 

[Stinker]

Under appropriate circumstances the mechanisms which lead to adaptation within a species also lead to speciation, and that has been directly observed both in nature and in the laboratory. So it is difficult to see how one can accept adaptation yet reject speciation. (gluadys post # 6)



One species changing into other species?? Observed in nature and the lab??

 

[Vance]

Yes, even Answers in Genesis eventually had to concede this point, and suggested that Creationists no longer use this "no new species" argument. You sound shocked?

Here is a bit of information about such speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

 

[California Tim]

Yes, even Answers in Genesis eventually had to concede this point, and suggested that Creationists no longer use this "no new species" argument. You sound shocked?

Here is a bit of information about such speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

And here at our venerable talkorigins "bible" of indisputable facts it is expressly stated of Biological Species Concept:

"The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years."​

So once again, we find a generalized concept being propogated as reliable basis to ascertain "fact". The author at talk origins went on to use the "bluegill in a thousand lakes" argument to justify jumping to conclusions in the absense of "delimiting species" due to the impracticality of it all.

So, in laymans terms what is being said? It's simple. The current definition of BCS is a prerequisite to accepting what has been observed as actual "speciation". SO when the rubber hits the road, as we so often find, the definitions are often changed when the scientific conclusions cannot support the preconceived notion that evolution "MUST" be "fact". All other possiblities are discarded rather than considered. Thus a new "fact" is born and more "evidence" shoved down our collective throats.

On a side note: I have yet to see one TE'ist question ANY of the information on talkorigins.com as disputable. It is readily accepted as 100% reliable, indisputable and innerrant everytime I see a reference link posted. It's Ironic the Bible itslef is often questioned more ardently by the same people who would never question talkorigins.com authors and sources. Thank God at least Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[Vance]

No, definitions are changed when it makes sense to do so, and when the old definition no longer is practical given the totality of the data. Of course concepts are going to undergo changes. That is good science. Can you imagine if we DIDN'T change the scientific concepts we had even 100 years ago. As we learn more, we adjust our current concepts to fit the new data. Those concepts that stand the test of time and are still effective in explaining the data are considered more and more likely to be the correct answer. Why would you expect a study of our natural world to work any differently.

The bottom line is that under any definition of speciation given, speciation has happened. They did not change how we define species in order to make sure that we can show observed speciation. That is just naive conspiracy thinking.

Why don't you provide your own workable and practical definition of species that would preclude ALL of the examples given in the links provided. There's a challenge for you. If this is not possible, then you have to concede that speciation has occured.

Are you saying that Answers in Genesis is wrong on this point? In fact, this is not even an issue in the Creation/Evolution debate. The Creationists have generally conceded this point, and have fallen back on "kinds". But they won't define kinds at all, for fear that it will be shown that their definition doesn't work.

 

[California Tim]

What I am trying to demonstrate, evidently to no avail, is how a particular concept can be classified as objective truth when in fact it is the polar opposite. I am showing examples within the sources you provided that prove this to be true. And while you readily admit that these definitions, theories, hypothesis and interpetations should naturally and rightly adapt, tweak or change with the addition of new evidence, you refuse to see the forest for the trees. All the information you provide as "proof" of evolution is in a constant state of flux. Yet not once has anyone shown a willingness to question it when supporting TE. Rather ironically, it is the Bible or acceptable interpretation of the Bible that is called into question based on this ever changing "science of origins" rather than the proven unreliable or incomplete conclusions used to justify that stance. Believe me - history favors the creationist in this category.

 

[gluadys]

Under appropriate circumstances the mechanisms which lead to adaptation within a species also lead to speciation, and that has been directly observed both in nature and in the laboratory. So it is difficult to see how one can accept adaptation yet reject speciation. (gluadys post # 6)



One species changing into other species?? Observed in nature and the lab??

Yes.

Ring species
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm

Fruit flies which have evolved to eat meat instead of fruit. The changes in DNA to allow for the change in digestive physiology resulted in a 3% difference in coding DNA from the original population. There is only a 2% difference between humans and chimpanzees. (This speciation was a result of a laboratory experiment)
G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

more than a dozen new species of mice evolved from one species dropped off on the Faroe islands 250 years ago.
Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

One scientist working with hybrids of sunflowers reproduced in the lab the same new species as had occurred naturally. Again, DNA analysis showed the same mutations in the natural hybrid and in the artificial one.
http://www.macfdn.org/programs/fel/fellows/rieseberg_loren.htm

the nylon bug
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Lots more.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[gluadys]

What I am trying to demonstrate, evidently to no avail, is how a particular concept can be classified as objective truth when in fact it is the polar opposite. I am showing examples within the sources you provided that prove this to be true. And while you readily admit that these definitions, theories, hypothesis and interpetations should naturally and rightly adapt, tweak or change with the addition of new evidence, you refuse to see the forest for the trees. All the information you provide as "proof" of evolution is in a constant state of flux. Yet not once has anyone shown a willingness to question it when supporting TE. Rather ironically, it is the Bible or acceptable interpretation of the Bible that is called into question based on this ever changing "science of origins" rather than the proven unreliable or incomplete conclusions used to justify that stance. Believe me - history favors the creationist in this category.

First in regard to talkorigins: one thing they do well is cite their sources. And those sources are often the primary literature--peer-reviewed scientific journals. I don't have to take to's word for anything. I can go to the source---and I often have. Many of those papers are available on the web and one can at least look at an abstract for free.

Second, regardless of definition, these papers describe observations which clearly show species changing anatomically and genetically. And in many instances, one of those changes is that the population under observation no longer breeds as successfully with the originating population as it used to.

If you don't like the term "speciation" what name would you prefer to describe this observed phenomenon? Or would you simply prefer to deny the observations?